Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[MG 2.0]

More deep diving:

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ... 25-253.pdf

Pay special attention to the conclusion.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

A deeper dive into Book of Mormon research and stylometry:

https://dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files4/ce5a24 ... 0b72be.pdf

Regards,
MG

Why would I take this seriously if the LDS Church itself doesn't endorse this?

[MG 2.0]

What I said. “Nothing to see here.”

Exactly. And yet you keep trying.

To be clear. I’m saying that the critics are the ones saying, “Nothing to see here”.

I think there is something to see and consider as one determines Book of Mormon authorship.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

A deeper dive into Book of Mormon research and stylometry:

https://dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files4/ce5a24 ... 0b72be.pdf

Regards,
MG

Why would i take this seriously is the LDS Church itself doesn't endorse this?

They leave stuff like this to the scholars.

You know that.

Like I said, apathy on the part of critics.

Regards.
MG

[Morley]

Why would i take this seriously is the LDS Church itself doesn't endorse this?

They leave stuff like this to the scholars.

You know that.

Like I said, apathy on the part of critics.

Regards.
MG

They leave it to the hobbyists, largely because nothing makes sense.

[MG 2.0]

They leave stuff like this to the scholars.

You know that.

Like I said, apathy on the part of critics.

Regards.
MG

They leave it to the hobbyists, largely because nothing makes sense.

Wow. That’s a simplistic way of looking at things. I would have thought more of you.

Another form of apathy.

I’ll have to concede that diving into these links I’ve provided are not for the faint of heart. It’s pretty deep stuff. Scientific even.

That can scare some folks away.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

They leave it to the hobbyists, largely because nothing makes sense.

Wow. That’s a simplistic way of looking at things. I would have thought more of you.

Another form of apathy.

I’ll have to concede that diving into these links I’ve provided are not for the faint of heart. It’s pretty deep stuff. Scientific even.

That can scare some folks away.

Regards,
MG

If this stuff is so good, why isn't any of this endorsed by the LDS Church. Are they also apathetic?

[MG 2.0]

Wow. That’s a simplistic way of looking at things. I would have thought more of you.

Another form of apathy.

I’ll have to concede that diving into these links I’ve provided are not for the faint of heart. It’s pretty deep stuff. Scientific even.

That can scare some folks away.

Regards,
MG

If this stuff is so good, why isn't any of this endorsed by the LDS Church. Are they also apathetic?

So you ARE apathetic.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

They leave it to the hobbyists, largely because nothing makes sense.

Wow. That’s a simplistic way of looking at things. I would have thought more of you.

Another form of apathy.

I’ll have to concede that diving into these links I’ve provided are not for the faint of heart. It’s pretty deep stuff. Scientific even.

That can scare some folks away.

Regards,
MG

Why does the Church leave this stuff to hobbyists to explain? Why are dentists, retired elementary school teachers, and professors of Arabic the ones doing all the heavy lifting? We have more than 100 general authorities. All are silent, except when it comes to spouting faith promoting aphorisms. Why aren't they the ones opining on the Ghost Committee or why Joesph slept with his babysitter? Is their silence also apathy?

[Morley]

If this stuff is so good, why isn't any of this endorsed by the LDS Church. Are they also apathetic?

So you ARE apathetic.

Regards,
MG

If the GAs don't care, why should I?