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

[_sock puppet]

Anybody can claim that any book was written by someone other than the purported author. That is equally true of Shakespeare's plays, or Charles Dickens' novels, or Mark Twain's, or anybody else's. When somebody makes such a claim, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claim; not on the purported author to disprove it. A man is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

Which of those literary genius's called the Book of Mormon chloroform in print?

The only one that read it.

[_Chap]

Can someone help me to make some sort of sense out of zerinus?

A skeleton of the principal element of our exchange goes like this.

In reaction to the 'no farm boy could have written that, therefore God' thread in Callister's talk (see https://speeches.BYU.edu/talks/tad-r-ca ... given/?M=V), I noted:

A man comes along and claims to have performed a task (in this case writing a certain kind of book), that it is argued he was not able to do.

Under such circumstances an obvious explanation of the situation is that he is lying, and that the book, or parts it, were in fact written by some other person, who wished his identity to remain concealed, and succeeded in ensuring that he remained anonymous. That is a perfectly viable alternative explanation.

It is by far the most economical hypothesis, in that it requires no miracles, and no supposition that there are special beings who intervene in the world to work miracles. It just requires the common human phenomenon of telling lies to win money, and the regard of others, and the practice of pseudonymous authorship, all of which are known from throughout human history.

I got back:

Anybody can claim that any book was written by someone other than the purported author. That is equally true of Shakespeare's plays, or Charles Dickens' novels, or Mark Twain's, or anybody else's. When somebody makes such a claim, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claim; not on the purported author to disprove it. A man is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

Who does zerinus think 'the purported author' of the Book of Mormon is, if not Smith, the person named on the title page of the 1830 edition?



I notice also this little jewel:

Unless you can come up with a new idea that no-one had through of before, merely regurgitating the failed hypotheses of the past gets boring, and will not help your case.

The idea that Smith, on his own or with associates, was the person who was responsible for the Book of Mormon, has only 'failed' in the sense that there are a small group of people, all devout Mormons, who have heard of it but refused to accept it, commonly on the grounds that their religious 'testimony' Trump's all argument. That is entirely their responsibility.

[_I have a question]

Can someone help me to make some sort of sense out of zerinus?

I suspect that's even beyond God's pay grade...

[_Chap]

Can someone help me to make some sort of sense out of zerinus?

I suspect that's even beyond God's pay grade...

OK. I think I shall leave him where he is. If anybody else other than zerinus thinks he has succeeded in controverting the position I articulated, please say so and give your reasons, and I'll try to respond.

[_Dr Exiled]

Here's why. If you come into the discussion with a presupposition that a creator/God doesn't exist...you're not going to see God's hand in anything. Makes sense, right?

I go with Elder Callister, and here's why. It's actually kind of simple. I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God. Operating under this premise/assumption when I'm listening to Elder Callister's recap of the five humanistic arguments that have sort of worn thin in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, I am OPEN to seeing God's hand in it rather than taking an automatic default position of "It can't be the work of God, because there isn't a God". If you don't believe in God in the first place you HAVE to come up with other alternatives besides the "gift and power of God".

It's really that simple...isn't it?

One really does have to "choose" to believe this b.s. because logic and evidence certainly aren't on the side of belief in J.S.'s dubious claims.

[_zerinus]

I've listened, can't see it.
Give us a summary.

There are at least three main elements that identify the Book of Mormon as a miracle. Firstly, it is high class literature. Not only Joseph Smith did not have the literary capability to produce such a book, nobody else did (or does). Nobody had ever been able to produce anything like it before, nor will ever be able to, unless it is by the same miraculous means. But being able recognize the Book of Mormon as a divine work of literature beyond the power of man to produce, is beyond the capability of most people. It requires an understanding of high class English literature that very few people possess.

The second thing that identifies it as a miracle is the great theology that it contains. Again, that is something that cannot be recognized by just anyone. It requires great insight into Christian theology to be able to do that, which very few people possess.

The third thing that identifies it as a miracle is the manner in which it was produced—dictated by an unlearned young plough boy on the American frontier with no formal education in less than 80 days, without reference to any books, notes, manuscripts, or anything else. It takes some people longer than that to read the book, let alone be able to write it. But if you are determined not to believe, nobody can force you to. There were many people who did not believe the miracles of Jesus either.

[_spotlight]

There are at least three main elements that identify the Book of Mormon as a miracle. Firstly, it is high class literature. Not only Joseph Smith did not have the literary capability to produce such a book, nobody else did (or does). Nobody had ever been able to produce anything like it before, nor will ever be able to, unless it is by the same miraculous means.

A rock.

But being able recognize the Book of Mormon as a divine work of literature beyond the power of man to produce, is beyond the capability of most people. It requires an understanding of high class English literature that very few people possess.

Including Mark Twain but not Zerinus who cannot spell the word occurrence properly.

The second thing that identifies it as a miracle is the great theology that it contains. Again, that is something that cannot be recognized by just anyone. It requires great insight into Christian theology to be able to do that, which very few people possess.

The destruction during the three days of darkness is just outstanding theology.

The third thing that identifies it as a miracle is the manner in which it was produced—dictated by an unlearned young plough boy

treasure hunter mostly

on the American frontier with no formal education in less than 80 days, without reference to any books, notes, manuscripts, or anything else

so you assert

It takes some people longer than that to read the book,

I read it in two subsequent afternoons

let alone be able to write it. But if you are determined not to believe, nobody can force you to.

thank god

There were many people who did not believe the miracles of Jesus either.

Hence we had an enlightenment and left the dark ages behind.

[Guest]

Brother Callister's attempts at portraying the Book of Mormon as "God-Given" are pathetically childish and manipulative. More fool you for swallowing it.

We will disagree on this.

On the other hand, from the top of my head the things that mark it as man-made would include KJV Bible plagiarism. Hard to imagine how that can be rationalised to fit a "God-Given" story of a people that would be long dead before the KJV Bible was even thought of. Remember Brother Callister said it's either "all true (all from the engravings on gold plates made by Nephite Prophets) or it's a big fat hoax"). The inclusion of the KJV Bible content destroys Callisters position entirely, by his own standards set for the book.

Maybe you've already stated your 'pick' earlier in the thread, but would you again share the method...one through five...that you think was used to create the Book of Mormon?

Personally, I think that if the "gift and power of God" option is chosen we are better able to explain some of the so-called 'problems' in the Book of Mormon. You still have to explain the book as a WHOLE...not simply pull out those parts that you see as being problematic and then throwing the Book of Mormon on the trash heap. I notice you didn't include Jacob 5 and other examples in which we have evidence that the Book of Mormon wasn't just a SIMPLE hodgepodge of stolen text and/or 'reworks' from other sources.

Also, the Book of Mormon teaches...in greater scope and understanding...things that aren't taught in detail, or at all, in the Bible. We need to account for that.

Again, it comes back to the premise of is there a creator/God that exists and is able/willing to communicate with mankind through additional scripture which testifies of Jesus Christ and His atonement. The Book of Mormon brings people to Christ. Are you personally looking and/or have you at one time in your life looked for additional witness/testimony of Christ in order to more fully understand and follow Him?

If a creator/God and Jesus Christ aren't in the picture for you, then as I said earlier, you will not "see" the importance or relevance of having modern day scripture, etc.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA&t=98s

Evolution doesn't discount there being a creator/God. And if there is a creator/God you are then left with having to fully explain the Book of Mormon.

I will be the first to admit that the FALL is incompletely understood within the paradigm of scientific explanation/understanding for the beginnings of mankind.

Regards,
MG

[_zerinus]

Who does zerinus think 'the purported author' of the Book of Mormon is, if not Smith, the person named on the title page of the 1830 edition?

That is the copyright page. For the purpose of copyright, Joseph Smith had to identify himself as the author of the book. That is the only way that it could have been done. But on the same page it is made clear that he was the translator, not the author of the book:

An Account Written by THE HAND OF Mormon UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites--Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile--Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation--Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed--To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof--Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile--The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.