Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[malkie]

1. Do stylometry studies, or any other similar studies, carry more weight than the contradiction that IHQ has highlighted over and over in this thread? Which is more dispositive?

2. Is it OK for a teacher in an official church class (e.g., Sunday School) to insist that these studies prove that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, or would the teacher be subject to correction for introducing non-church material into the classroom?

[malkie]

Credulity is not a virtue.

When MG calls us “unbelievers” or “apostates” or “atheists” it is not derogatory to me. Those positions are the default to any outrageous claim. Anyone who believes without good evidence is credulous. And I think Mormons are as credulous as Scientologists.

There is as much evidence for Nephi’s existence as there is for the space alien emperor Xenu. Zero!

My problem is with MG's passive-aggressive: "Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)." He doubles down by implying that not being a nice guy could be linked to what he calls IHQ's apostasy.

In MG's mind, the insertion of a smiley face gives him deniability. I'm sure my comment will also bring charges that I'm canceling him. But I'm not. I don't really care what insults he suggests. I doubt if IHQ does, either. That said, I do find it interesting when the mask slips.

Must be great times at Thanksgiving Dinner. "Dear, aren't you dressing a little slutty? LOL. You know I'm just kidding. Who even knows what slutty looks like with your generation."

Ha ha.

You reminded me of an incident when I was visiting a member family many years ago. The Bishop popped in for a quick word with the father.

One of the teenage daughters, who was dressed up for a date (I think), was saying goodbye to everyone.

The Bishop remarked, "You're looking very slutty this evening." In the total silence that followed, he stammered, "I mean, 'slinky'!" Not sure if that was an improvement.

[drumdude]

My problem is with MG's passive-aggressive: "Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)." He doubles down by implying that not being a nice guy could be linked to what he calls IHQ's apostasy.

In MG's mind, the insertion of a smiley face gives him deniability. I'm sure my comment will also bring charges that I'm canceling him. But I'm not. I don't really care what insults he suggests. I doubt if IHQ does, either. That said, I do find it interesting when the mask slips.

I noticed that he took a little swipe at me too, upthread.

MG and I met in real life about 10 years ago, and I was left with an very positive impression of him at the time.

It seem that we are both rather disappointed in each other now. Such is life.

DCP seems to be nice in real life. It would be difficult (and extremely rude) for Dan to be an insufferable jerk in person like he is online.

[I Have Questions]

Credulity is not a virtue.

When MG calls us “unbelievers” or “apostates” or “atheists” it is not derogatory to me. Those positions are the default to any outrageous claim. Anyone who believes without good evidence is credulous. And I think Mormons are as credulous as Scientologists.

There is as much evidence for Nephi’s existence as there is for the space alien emperor Xenu. Zero!

My problem is with MG's passive-aggressive: "Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)." He doubles down by implying that not being a nice guy could be linked to what he calls IHQ's apostasy.

In MG's mind, the insertion of a smiley face gives him deniability. I'm sure my comment will also bring charges that I'm canceling him. But I'm not. I don't really care what insults he suggests. I doubt if IHQ does, either. That said, I do find it interesting when the mask slips.

Trying to besmirch my personality and membership status are an irrelevance to the discussion. What counts are the facts.

1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century.

Smith and the Church claim statement 1 is true.
Statement 2 has been unequivocally proven.

The two statements cannot both be true.

[Marcus]

My problem is with MG's passive-aggressive: "Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)." He doubles down by implying that not being a nice guy could be linked to what he calls IHQ's apostasy.

In MG's mind, the insertion of a smiley face gives him deniability. I'm sure my comment will also bring charges that I'm canceling him. But I'm not. I don't really care what insults he suggests. I doubt if IHQ does, either. That said, I do find it interesting when the mask slips.

Trying to besmirch my personality and membership status are an irrelevance to the discussion. What counts are the facts.

Exactly. MG dances around the facts, putting only minimal effort into actually addressing the topic, until he can force the conversation into a place where he can attempt to insult, disparage and degrade people who believe differently than he does. He comes here for that reason alone, and when he thinks he has succeeded at it, he suddenly leaves, invariably stating no one has said anything of importance but himself but he'll check in later to see if anyone else can. Why is insulting others so important to him? That is a sad life to be forced to live, if he can only get attention by coming here and trolling for that.

What counts are the facts.

1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century.

Smith and the Church claim statement 1 is true.
Statement 2 has been unequivocally proven.

The two statements cannot both be true.

It's yet another area where the apologists can't fix the problem with semantics, sloppy footnotes, definition changes and fudged "research."

[MG 2.0]

1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century.

Smith and the Church claim statement 1 is true.
Statement 2 has been unequivocally proven.

The two statements cannot both be true.

I think they can. I commented on why I believe this to be so earlier. You came back and said, “I don’t get it”.

Paraphrasing.

If using the word “apostate” is offensive I will stop using that term in reference to those here who are either antagonistic towards the church or have left the church. I was using it as a descriptor of church status and positions taken against the church and/or its members. I’ve used the word ‘nonbeliever’ which is probably a bit less offensive to some here. If it doesn’t offend anyone I will continue, when appropriate, to use that word as a descriptor.

Again, both of your statements can be true at the same time. That’s why I didn’t continue to respond after having already done so.

I find stylometry research to be much more interesting. That’s why I linked to the research. Personally, I think this is a difficult ‘evidence’ for critics to dispense with.

Also, when I say that I’m either stepping out or taking a break it has NOTHING to do with feeling like my back is against the wall. I simply, as I said, need to take a breather. I have other things going on in life besides this board although I do enjoy the ‘back and forth’. It gives me an opportunity to get inside the minds of nonbelievers and in some cases recollect having been through the same difficulties nonbelievers have that are roadblocks to faith.

I was there at one time and can sympathize. I suppose that’s why nowadays I like to present alternative ways of looking at things from a faithful perspective to offer a different viewpoint when rather entrenched critical viewpoints are seemingly the ‘only game in town’.

malkie, I have no reason to continue what you believe to be a permanent and unassailable divide between us. Jesus taught that we ought to be peacemakers. If I can play my part in mending the divide I will do so.

Marcus, we’ve thrown the word ‘troll’ at each other. As much as we might each throw that term around against one another and even believe that it is true…I don’t think it actually adds to any discussion. I would suggest we each stop making that accusation.

As for the further ‘armchair analysis’ of me as a person that has occurred in the last couple of days, well, it’s interesting to hear that analysis… it in large part mot close to the truth. Unfortunately I will not be able to change any hearts and minds except through trying to be more empathetic/sympathetic to those that are also making their own efforts to doing the same.

But when we have someone like Mr. Wang Chung that makes disgusting comments pointed towards a person’s mother (who has passed on), I draw the line at that behavior and will call it out.

What is frustrating is that others don’t when it is ‘one of their own’.

So IHQ, my suggestion is that you consider your two statement list that you continue to post as ‘gospel truth’ as being subject to the possibility of not being so. I’m sorry if my two cents are seemingly incomprehensible to you.

The thing is, once you become so entrenched in the idea that there is a ‘smoking gun’ it may blind you do doing any further thinking. You cut yourself off from more analysis while settling on what you believe to be the truth of the matter.

I’ve seen a number of smoking guns come and go on this board. And I mean, come and go. Go nowhere.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

1. Do stylometry studies, or any other similar studies, carry more weight than the contradiction that IHQ has highlighted over and over in this thread? Which is more dispositive?

2. Is it OK for a teacher in an official church class (e.g., Sunday School) to insist that these studies prove that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, or would the teacher be subject to correction for introducing non-church material into the classroom?

I don’t think a teacher would offer this as absolute proof. More likely that these kinds of investigations are not a topic of discussion in most Gospel Doctrine classes. The teachers teach gospel related ‘edification’ lessons rather than getting into intellectual or controversial issues.

Members do that on their own. Just ask me!

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Exactly. MG dances around the facts, putting only minimal effort into actually addressing the topic, until he can force the conversation into a place where he can attempt to insult, disparage and degrade people who believe differently than he does. He comes here for that reason alone, and when he thinks he has succeeded at it, he suddenly leaves, invariably stating no one has said anything of importance but himself but he'll check in later to see if anyone else can. Why is insulting others so important to him? That is a sad life to be forced to live, if he can only get attention by coming here and trolling for that.

Marcus, I will not be able to disabuse you of the false accusations that you make towards me. I will simply have to live with them while at the same time trying harder to be the peacemaker.

I will commit to that.

Minimal effort? Gee, thanks a lot.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century.

Smith and the Church claim statement 1 is true.
Statement 2 has been unequivocally proven.

The two statements cannot both be true.

I think they can.

No. it’s an impossibility.

If I write something unique today in 2024, it cannot appear in a record that has already been written 1,348 earlier. It has to be an ‘after-the-event’ interjection.

In terms of the KJV Bible mistakes - somebody put them into The Book of Mormon after the event. And so statement 1. is false. It’s inescapable, no matter how much magic went into inserting those 17th Century mistakes in a record that it is claimed was written and sealed up before the end of the 1st Century.

If, during the translation process for the Book of Mormon, God himself inserted those 17th mistakes for his own purposes, statement 1. would still be false.

It is impossible for statement 1 and statement 2 to be both true.

[MG 2.0]

My problem is with MG's passive-aggressive…[snip]

At times, I do call it as I see it. Passive aggressive? I don’t think so.

Interestingly, I don’t find myself trying to label others with psychobabble stuff. I’m more interested in the arguments and opinions.

And as I’ve said, I will discontinue using the word apostate if that seems to be offensive to some.

Just leave my mother out of it…please.(not you personally, just as a general statement brought about by what another poster crudely did). I may come down hard on that.

As I did. I won’t stand for that.

Regards,
MG