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

[_mentalgymnast]

In Bro. Ostler's testimony referred to by link in the preceding post he says:

I also learned that Joseph Smith and others had made numerous changes to the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon in editions subsequent to the first editions. Because of my love for the Doctrine and Covenants, I began to ponder how that could be. How could Joseph Smith alter a revelation he had received? It was during this time that I first formulated what I have come to the call the co-creative view of revelation. I knew from my own experience that I had impressions, revelations, and insights that spoke in my mind and that I could formulate in many different ways. In fact, the fullness of the knowledge could almost never be expressed adequately and, as I grew in capacity, I was better able to express even what I had learned in earlier revelations. I figured it was the same for Joseph and the translation of the Book of Mormon.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/407/blake-t-ostler

When I first came across the idea that Joseph may have been an active rather than passive participant in the translation process, it made sense. It all comes back to the principle of common consent and/or collaborative effort...counsels...between God and man. This would provide the best route/vehicle in which we are able to learn and progress.

Further revelations during the restoration period typically involved Joseph and/or others inquiring, and then the Lord would respond. To think that there was some kind of a collaborative effort going on during the Book of Mormon translation process makes sense to me.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

So. What have we learned from the thread?

From the OP -

Coming back from my daughter's house today I was listening to KBYU radio in my truck and heard the following recording of a Devotional Forum at BYU on November 2016 given by Tad R. Callister, the Sunday School General President. I think it is worth the listen. Puts everything into a nutshell, in my opinion.

I still haven't figured out why MG started this thread. Or why a centrist, moderate Mormon would be listening to KBYU to pass the time while driving over any of the other options available. People who listen to Church devotionals tend to be those who are wrapping themselves up in the Mormon comfort-blanket when out and about in the secular world. It's a very conscious choice that ought to be explained. So when it comes to Callister's talk, it gets even more mysterious in that an informed person ought to have recognized how cheaply he reduced the critical concerns with the miraculous claims around the Book of Mormon to strawmen arguments he then brushed off lightly.

I'd like to think that when the tables are turned and we see over-simplified critical resprentations of believing arguments I both recognize them for what they are and would have the respectfulness for others to not represent them as anything but overly reductive strawmen. Maybe I lack self-awareness but I'd like to think I've walked the walk in this regard on this board and elsewhere. So I'm not buying it when MG asserts that he can be facinated by the pep rally talk, believe it's core message is valid, and also be participating here as an aware believer who has informed understanding of critical arguments.

It would be interesting to see MG attempt to convey the critical arguments in a way that the critic who owns them would generally agree. I generally judge believer and critic alike by how faithfully they can demonstrate an understanding of an opposing argument. It's a finely screened filter, to be honest.

Oh, I also found an interesting new source I hadn't read before. That was pretty cool.

[_honorentheos]

To think that there was some kind of a collaborative effort going on during the Book of Mormon translation process makes sense to me.

Regards,
MG

Church history supports the fact that Oliver and Joseph would discuss the content of the Book of Mormon and ideas within it. So we agree.

I know that's not what you meant, but the phrase was just too good for me to pass up.

[_Lemmie]

If you want to bring up your assessment of Ostler again, why not respond to ihaq's questions about ostler earlier in the thread?

You've read Blake Ostler, right?

For clarity, explain (specifically) what you (not Ostler) mean by the Book of Mormon being a mix of ancient and modern translation...

First of all, and again you have this habit of asking and not answering questions(IHAQ, right? ), I asked if you have read Ostler's writings in any detail.

Admission. It's been a while since I explored his thoughts/writing. It wasn't yesterday.

[bolding added by me]

I'm not interested in Ostler. I'm interested in hearing your explanation of your statement. But, like the numerous requests for evidence that supports your claim that the Book of Mormon is God-Given that have gone unanswered page after page after page, on the thread you started, I expected the response you gave above.

[NO RESPONSE FROM mentalgymnast]

Callister
“Joseph Smith [as a young man] could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictat[e] a book like the Book of Mormon.”32

Ostler
"the Book of Mormon was translated rather loosely and was based on Joseph Smith’s conceptual abilities and horizons."

In his OP MG presents Callister as it being the case "in a nutshell".
Later on in the same thread MG presents Ostler as being "what many of us believe" even though Ostlers and Callisters positions are mutually exclusive.

I can only conclude that MG is scratching around looking for something, anything upon which to hang his desire to have someone agree his belief in Mormonism is credible.

That's where the thread left off discussion of Ostler. Why not pick it up there?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

TIL I learned an attorney believes Joseph Smith was a co-producer with God in the Book of Mormon production.

Wow. Neat. Expansion Theory.

So, now, the Golden Plates weren't used, and the iStone was a celestial conference call where God and Joseph Smith kinda hammered out a script that Joseph Smith would then set about selling to make money.

Ok. Ockham is spinning like Matrix Neo in his grave right about now.

- Doc

[Guest]

So I'm not buying it when MG asserts that he can be fascinated by the pep rally talk, believe it's core message is valid, and also be participating here as an aware believer who has informed understanding of critical arguments.

I'm not buying it either, especially when he just posted this in another thread:

The possibility still exists, however, that Joseph could have done it...according to some folks. But I think those arguments are thin. If needed, we can repost Elder Callister's talk referred to on another thread and relook at the five arguments the critics have made against the Book of Mormon.
viewtopic.php?p=1049221#p1049221

Unbelievable. Your comment below could not be more accurate.

So when it comes to Callister's talk, it gets even more mysterious in that an informed person ought to have recognized how cheaply he reduced the critical concerns with the miraculous claims around the Book of Mormon to strawmen arguments he then brushed off lightly.

[_mentalgymnast]

So. What have we learned from the thread?

From the OP -

Coming back from my daughter's house today I was listening to KBYU radio in my truck and heard the following recording of a Devotional Forum at BYU on November 2016 given by Tad R. Callister, the Sunday School General President. I think it is worth the listen. Puts everything into a nutshell, in my opinion.

I still haven't figured out why MG started this thread.

To see/understand if there was/is or might be anything 'new under the sun' that would convince me...or others...that the tried and true arguments of the critics are anything but 'thin'. This is as good as place as any to see if there's anything new under the sun in regards to this inquiry/interest on my part.

Or why a centrist, moderate Mormon would be listening to KBYU to pass the time while driving over any of the other options available.

When I leave for work early in the morning I either listen to NPR or KBYU Classical Music. Depends on the mood. The day I listened to this Devotional I had listened to music in the morning. When I started the drive home and turned on the radio, this devotional was playing. Otherwise, I would probably never have heard it. I don't think I would have sought it out purposefully. But I am glad that I happened to come across it.

If I don't turn on the radio I listen to Google Play podcasts over my truck's Auxiliary sound system. Here are the podcasts that I have bookmarked and rotate between:

NPR-Wait Wait Don't Tell Me
Mormon Discussion Podcast
Infants on Thrones
Mormon Stories
LDS Perspectives Podcast
Radio Lab

So it's a bit of this and a bit of that.

People who listen to Church devotionals tend to be those who are wrapping themselves up in the Mormon comfort-blanket when out and about in the secular world.

Generally speaking, I think I would agree with you.

It's a very conscious choice that ought to be explained.

OK. And I'm sure that you have a point to be made in regards to this thread...how?

So when it comes to Callister's talk, it gets even more mysterious in that an informed person ought to have recognized how cheaply he reduced the critical concerns with the miraculous claims around the Book of Mormon to strawmen arguments he then brushed off lightly.

I don't think the arguments of the critics ought to be brushed off lightly. I know I didn't. Starting years ago with:

https://www.amazon.com/New-Approaches-B ... t+metcalfe

I'd like to think that when the tables are turned and we see over-simplified critical resprentations of believing arguments I both recognize them for what they are and would have the respectfulness for others to not represent them as anything but overly reductive strawmen. Maybe I lack self-awareness but I'd like to think I've walked the walk in this regard on this board and elsewhere.

I would hope to think that this is true in your case also. I have no respect for the strawman. I've seen enough of them around here.

So I'm not buying it when MG asserts that he can be facinated by the pep rally talk...

Your words, your conclusion. I think it was actually pretty cool that Elder Callister actually engaged/listed the arguments at all in a public forum. I think it was a step forward rather than backwards. Sure, he could have gone into a lot more scholarly detail and/or fleshed things out more...but this was a DEVOTIONAL. What would you expect?

...believe it's core message is valid...

On that I will plead guilty. I think the talk was needed and that these arguments and the arguments for a 'God given' Book of Mormon ought to be out there in the LDS public forum. Folks can read/explore beyond Callister's address. My guess is that curiosity drove listeners to his talk to go home and do some googling.

...and also be participating here as an aware believer who has informed understanding of critical arguments.

I think I would place myself in that category.

It would be interesting to see MG attempt to convey the critical arguments in a way that the critic who owns them would generally agree.

Not quite sure how this would work/look. You might have to help me out here. I have repeatedly said that I understand and/or can have empathy with the critics for their views/decisions, etc.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

So, now, the Golden Plates weren't used...

And you know this, how?

...and the iStone was a celestial conference call where God and Joseph Smith kinda hammered out a script that Joseph Smith would then set about selling to make money.

This is a simplified reduction of your views. Thanks for sharing.

Ok. Ockham is spinning like Matrix Neo in his grave right about now.

You are of course entitle to your views/conclusions.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

In Bro. Ostler's testimony referred to by link in the preceding post he says:

I also learned that Joseph Smith and others had made numerous changes to the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon in editions subsequent to the first editions. Because of my love for the Doctrine and Covenants, I began to ponder how that could be. How could Joseph Smith alter a revelation he had received? It was during this time that I first formulated what I have come to the call the co-creative view of revelation. I knew from my own experience that I had impressions, revelations, and insights that spoke in my mind and that I could formulate in many different ways. In fact, the fullness of the knowledge could almost never be expressed adequately and, as I grew in capacity, I was better able to express even what I had learned in earlier revelations. I figured it was the same for Joseph and the translation of the Book of Mormon.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/407/blake-t-ostler

When I first came across the idea that Joseph may have been an active rather than passive participant in the translation process, it made sense. It all comes back to the principle of common consent and/or collaborative effort...counsels...between God and man. This would provide the best route/vehicle in which we are able to learn and progress.

Further revelations during the restoration period typically involved Joseph and/or others inquiring, and then the Lord would respond. To think that there was some kind of a collaborative effort going on during the Book of Mormon translation process makes sense to me.

Regards,
MG

Been there. This is just a human ability that does not require the divine in any way. It didn't disappear when I stopped believing. It's funny how many can take such a normal experience and think something divine must be a part of it.

[_Themis]

It would be interesting to see MG attempt to convey the critical arguments in a way that the critic who owns them would generally agree. I generally judge believer and critic alike by how faithfully they can demonstrate an understanding of an opposing argument. It's a finely screened filter, to be honest.

Bingo. Well said.