Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[drumdude]

OK. That’s it. Taking an extended break again.

Best wishes and Happy holidays!

Regards,
MG

Happy holidays and merry Christmas MG!

I haven’t been paying much attention to this thread but I’m glad it’s calming down a little. It’s so easy to get wrapped up in heated arguments here.

[Marcus]

Why when I’m reading your garbage am I seeing Batman’s Joker in my mind’s eye?

I think I’ll just let you run with it and see where this goes.

Looking for that private message. Free lunch.

Regards,
MG

The more you attack, the more I love you buddy. I know you're hurting, lonely and frustrated. It's okay to hurt.

"When you allow and embrace the hurt, you are on the path to recovery." -- Fred Rogers

You have the patience of a saint. Thanks, Everybody Wang Chung!

[I Have Questions]

I think now would be a good time to enhance my two Book of Mormon statements.

1. The Book of Mormon was written solely by many ancient prophets on gold plates that were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon who finished the record and died prior to the end of the 1st century.
2. The Book of Mormon contains large sections of the KJV Bible that were first written later than the 6th century, and within those sections replicates, verbatim, mistakes that were made in the 17th century by the people producing the KJV Bible.

These two statements of fact are mutually exclusive. They are contradictory of each other. One of them cannot be true. The Church maintains statement 1 is true, but the facts in statement 2 have been verified and are accurate. Somebody is lying, can you solve the puzzle as to who that is?

[bill4long]

I think now would be a good time to enhance my two Book of Mormon statements.

1. The Book of Mormon was written solely by many ancient prophets on gold plates that were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon who finished the record and died prior to the end of the 1st century.
2. The Book of Mormon contains large sections of the KJV Bible that were first written later than the 6th century, and within those sections replicates, verbatim, mistakes that were made in the 17th century by the people producing the KJV Bible.

These two statements of fact are mutually exclusive. They are contradictory of each other. One of them cannot be true. The Church maintains statement 1 is true, but the facts in statement 2 have been verified and are accurate. Somebody is lying, can you solve the puzzle as to who that is?

The apologists do have "answers", but all their answers rely on miracles, which are indistinguishable from fraud.

"Mormon" quotes the fake ending of "Mark's" gospel. Fraud on parade.

I keep wondering why Rusty doesn't just ask the stone in the hat, that he has in his possession. As "prophet, seer, and revelator" he should be able to answer a good number of troublesome questions lickity split. But alas, he never does.

[Moksha]

I keep wondering why Rusty doesn't just ask the stone in the hat, that he has in his possession. As "prophet, seer, and revelator" he should be able to answer a good number of troublesome questions lickity split. But alas, he never does.

You are assuming the seer stone has a sufficient charge left in its crystalline matrix to power up.

[huckelberry]

MG, you got hurt feelings when I teased you. That’s understandable. Sometimes the feeling of betrayal that can come from hurt feelings is horrible. Hurt feelings can be worse than physical pain.

You didn’t get the joke right away, and, when you found out, you understandably thought that I was making fun of you behind your back. I was really making fun to your face.

I had thought that I was being more transparent than that, which is why I used the obvious French term for mental gymnastics. Since my painting had a bare bum and my French is not good, I used a translation program for ‘Kiss my Ass.” I wanted some phrase that was not so obvious. I didn’t understand all the implications of my choice until malkie gave his wonderful interpretation. But it wouldn’t have mattered if I’d known or not, the joy in his story alone would have made me pick it, anyway.

Anyhow, this is a long-winded way of partly apologizing, but also kind of not—because I’m only halfway sorry.

I hear you when you say you don’t trust me anymore. I wish I knew what difference that would make in how you treat me or anyone else. I get frustrated because you’re not an honest person in discussion. You’re disingenuous, you know it, and you don’t care. This becomes a form of disrespect to everyone who engages you.

I may have reacted badly. Or maybe not. I’ll have to revisit in a few days.

Well this thread has little to do with the Book of Mormon, no discussion on the subject anyway. In fact it is tiresome. I will use that as an excuse for adding stuff.

Hey Morley, you said you were always ok with some art history discussion.

I was at a loss to identify the artist of your bathing man. For a moment or two it reminded me of Lucian Freud but way to classical technique. Perhaps an early experiment. Naw can't be. You provide a name of artist of course who I did not recognize. looking him up with the knowitall machine I recognize a few of the paintings, street scene in Paris on rainy day was lodged in my memory. But this bather is truly an odd painting. In your face realism and perhaps a criticism of artist convention of the time , or many times where an undressed woman bathing is presented for visual pleasure. The man is athletic and well painted but not particularly pretty. I may not be a good judge of homoerotic intention but I doubt there is much in the painting. Looking at some other Caillebotte painting I noticed a naked lady. Her pose reminded much of Freud, a bit awkward and very unclassical. She was rendered is a pretty manner however.

The style of bathing man reminds me of Eakins who I like quite a bit. I do not see much kiss my ass in Eakins but there is an interest in stark realism with some shock value.

Since I an just adding stuff I am thinking of Gerhard Richter whom you have updated to. I do not remember when I first saw reproductions of his work. It was some years ago before he was producing the abstract things. Like your selection the purity of the realistic image is very striking. I cannot explain but I always feel there is a lot of strength in his work even if it is not obvious just why. There is a Pacific Northwest artist James Lavadour whose later painting can have some style similarity to Richter abstracts but as soon as I compare them in my mind Richters seem solid and austere.

[I Have Questions]

I think now would be a good time to enhance my two Book of Mormon statements.

1. The Book of Mormon was written solely by many ancient prophets on gold plates that were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon who finished the record and died prior to the end of the 1st century.
2. The Book of Mormon contains large sections of the KJV Bible that were first written later than the 6th century, and within those sections replicates, verbatim, mistakes that were made in the 17th century by the people producing the KJV Bible.

These two statements of fact are mutually exclusive. They are contradictory of each other. One of them cannot be true. The Church maintains statement 1 is true, but the facts in statement 2 have been verified and are accurate. Somebody is lying, can you solve the puzzle as to who that is?

The apologists do have "answers", but all their answers rely on miracles, which are indistinguishable from fraud.

What is interesting to me is that the chapters of Isaiah that weren’t written until long after Mormon had sealed up the record and died, and the mistakes the producers of the KJV Bible made in the 17th century irrefutably show the claim that The Book of Mormon was 100% written, abridged, and sealed up prior to to the end of the 1st century is false. I have no idea why the Church continues to perpetrate such an obvious lie.

[I Have Questions]

The best argument from apologists seems to be based on the idea that Joseph “translated” the plates in his own words. Taking the stories that he “saw” on the plates, and rewording them into his own vocabulary.

Okay, but if you’re going to run with that idea then you can’t also put forward chiasmus as proof it’s a legitimate ancient record. Because that chiasmus is simply Joseph putting things into his own words.

If you want to run with chiasmus then you can’t have Joseph putting things into his own words. We are back at mutually exclusive propositions.

1. The Book of Mormon contains chiasmus because it’s written anciently by ancient prophets.
2. The Book of Mormon is Joseph putting the stories and themes on the gold plates into his own words.

Those two statements cannot both be true. They can however both be false. Apologists have put forward both ideas as support for the Book of Mormon. In doing so they are arguing against themselves.

[Fence Sitter]

I keep wondering why Rusty doesn't just ask the stone in the hat, that he has in his possession. As "prophet, seer, and revelator" he should be able to answer a good number of troublesome questions lickity split. But alas, he never does.

Maybe he is afraid of dying because the Book of Mormon says

And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

[I Have Questions]

I keep wondering why Rusty doesn't just ask the stone in the hat, that he has in his possession. As "prophet, seer, and revelator" he should be able to answer a good number of troublesome questions lickity split. But alas, he never does.

Maybe he is afraid of dying because the Book of Mormon says

And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

I’d give it a go. I’m sure lots of people would risk it. Alas it’s hidden away instead of in a glass case at the museum adjacent to Temple Square. But somebody took is picture of it, did they die?