The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_Dr Exiled]

I saw your prior argument where you say if one can't show how Joseph Smith did it, then by default it came from god. That argument is simply preposterous. This is why I think you're here to just cause drama. You know posters here want good evidence and arguments based in reality but you bring this s$%t here anyway. Do you really believe that if one cannot show how Joseph Smith did his magic trick in creating the Book of Mormon, then by default it came from god? Is that what you really believe?

Joseph Smith claimed that it came from God. There were witnesses. First three witnesses, followed by eight witnesses. If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you, otherwise his claim stands.

We also have pretty good historical data regarding the case. We know about those who were involved, and their descriptions of the events, all of which support his account. Again, if you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you, not on us. And I suggest you take your further bull-s$%t elsewhere.

Take a look at what Dan Vogel had to say about the three and eight witnesses on his you tube channel here https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCE7-EZ_ANHRkYHv7wCUTt0Q They were conned or deluded into making their statements and given the utter lack of linguistic, anthropological and the multitude of other contrary evidence, the Book of Mormon is clearly made up by someone (Joseph Smith most likely). I would say we can assume this by default. So to try and turn this around simply because we don't know the minute by minute detail of how Joseph Smith did it and try to say that by default the Book of Mormon is devine, well, is simply silly.

[_mentalgymnast]

...your efforts are much appreciated-- by me at least if not by mentalgymnast! I think you gave him a knowledge-induced headache; he, as usual, was suddenly needed elsewhere just as you disproved his argument.

It was me that needed my bed. Is there no rest for the wicked...umm, intellectually dishonest...umm, SICK?

Believe it or not, I have also found honor's contributions interesting and informative. This is a line of investigation that over the years I haven't explored in detail. Thus, I didn't make any significant comment in response to honor except to ask for some documentation/source material.

No headache...except for the one I had from the head cold that stayed with me all night and into today.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

There is no supporting evidence for the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is God-Given other than MG cannot explain to his own satisfaction how Joseph might have done it, even though it's been pointed out very eloquently how Joseph might have done it.

This is the problem with MG. I was reading lots of apologia when I first started looking at these issues and certainly came across the same arguments he is impressed with. I just knew better to check them out for accuracy from both sides. I found that Joseph not only did know, or the information did exist in his environment. I don't do Mental Gymnastic's.

[_mentalgymnast]

Special mention should be given to MG's behaviorial deterioration as the thread, his thread, progressed.
It's a consistent pattern.

Well, of course. Thanks for the mention.

And Lemmie too:

You're the poster boy for intellectual dishonesty.

There, now we have it all out in the open...again.

It's my word against yours...but I'll say it again anyways...I'm not being intellectually dishonest, at all.

To be honest, this is a thread I'd just as well not see derailed into he said/she said on my purported lack of intellectual dishonesty. But I needed/have to at least chime in...not the first time I've done so...to simply protect and/or stick up for my good name and sense of personal integrity.

If you want to continue making what you believe to be an 'issue' on this over and over again, I can't stop you.

And no, my behavior did not "deteriorate" as this thread moved on. Be that as it may...

Although...I was feeling the effects of 'brain fog' due to being sick and having a cold. Dang bug has been with me for over a month now. Blehh. Yes, I've been to the doctor. Supposedly it's a viral infection. Nasty one.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Do you realize what you just asked?

You just asked me to prove to you something that isn't attested to in the actual non-BoM record.

Go back and read your links. They comment time and again at how amazing the knowledge is that Zenos and his people demonstrate that others of the time might not have. Why? Maybe it's because others of the time outside of China didn't have the knowledge. They're assuming the Book of Zeno is real and then composing an argument. The tech did not exist at the time in a place that would have made its way into the Brass Plates. Have fun finding a non-LDS source that will back you up.

You haven't demonstrated anything more than that this is an anachronism still.

Again, the Book of Mormon asserts that the technique was known. If it is your contention that it wasn’t, the burden is on you to prove your case, not on us to disprove it.

That thought was percolating around in the back of my foggy mind last night too, zerinus.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

There is no supporting evidence for the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is God-Given other than MG cannot explain to his own satisfaction how Joseph might have done it, even though it's been pointed out very eloquently how Joseph might have done it.

I don't think so. But I can see why you might think otherwise. No surprise there.

Regards,
MG

[_spotlight]

I will only repeat that you have very little of actual substance to add to the conversation.

The irony meter just broke.

You missed this part. ...Ihaq's question

This seems to be a question that has great importance to you and you're going to continue asking it...without feeling as though the questions asked of you are worth answering, I might add, (you seem to have a habit of doing that)...so I'll simply point you to the rest of Elder Callister's talk starting with the heading:

WHERE DID JOSEPH GET THE DOCTRINE?

Not to say that you're going to agree with him...but there it is. You read the talk, I assume?

MG doesn't know the difference between an argument from evidence and an argument from ignorance.

Unless you have something to contribute, substantively, to the conversation...please find something else to do.

And doesn't realize that Callister's argument from ignorance is logically fallacious and that there is more substance in Lemmie's/Ihaq's posts than in Callister's entire talk.

[Guest]

Again, the Book of Mormon asserts that the technique was known. If it is your contention that it wasn’t, the burden is on you to prove your case, not on us to disprove it.[/color]

That thought was percolating around in the back of my foggy mind last night too, zerinus.

But surely you can see that this is not a solid defense. It is the Book of Mormon authenticity that is in question, so we can not use the Book of Mormon to verify itself. We must find another source that shows what the Book of Mormon claims was in fact present at the time.

As an analogy, try this: I walk into a bank and have typed on very nice bank letter head that I am owed a million dollars by the bank. The bank has no record of this transaction and I can not prove that anyone from the bank gave it to me other than it names the bank and is on their letterhead. I could not say, "but of course you owe me the money, it says so right here. And until you can 100% prove that this document didn't come from you, you must pay me."

[_mentalgymnast]

Because they use the text of Jacob 5 to describe what ancients of the time and place knew about olive cultivation?

(facepalm) Come on, man. You have to see how silly that is.

All the silliness is coming from the other side, evidently.

When I read this last night, I let it pass...but no, I don't see how "silly" that is.

As I look at all of the writing that has been done in regards to Jacob 5...and much of it was yesterday, and I linked to it...I think there's much more to Jacob 5 than folks want to think/admit. But to each his own...

I don't think...at least yet (and not by a long stretch)...that I would toss Jacob 5 away based upon incomplete information available on ancient grafting techniques, etc. Again, there's too much stuff there that, at least to me, speaks of a God who has a plan laid out for His people and has made effort throughout the ages of the world to bring people to Him. But, alas, they refuse/rebel. We see that today more than ever.

I've asked this question before, in regards to chiasmus in the Book of Mormon...but it applies here also...why would Joseph and Co. spend so much time and effort in putting together 'complexity' in the narrative if they could have easily gotten away with not doing so? After all, they 'gave it away' when they purportedly made silly little mistakes in other places in the Book of Mormon. How can they be so mindful/exact/thourough and at the same time supposedly be so ignorant and stupid as to insert stuff that people will obviously pick up on as being anachronistic, etc.?

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

Xenophon wrote:

"But surely you can see that this is not a solid defense. It is the Book of Mormon authenticity that is in question, so we can not use the Book of Mormon to verify itself. We must find another source that shows what the Book of Mormon claims was in fact present at the time.

As an analogy, try this: I walk into a bank and have typed on very nice bank letter head that I am owed a million dollars by the bank. The bank has no record of this transaction and I can not prove that anyone from the bank gave it to me other than it names the bank is on their letterhead. I could not say, 'but of course you owe me the money, it says so right here. And until you can 100% prove that this document didn't come from you, you must pay me.' "

But what if they prayed about the letter with real intent, believing the letter was true? Wouldn't they get a confirmation that the letter was true?