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

[_honorentheos]

I'm biased, but of that thread this from the sock puppet 1 Iron did accurately reflect my own view -

I'm sure that most of us think we could easily pull the wool over the eyes of those with whom we disagree. Unfortunately, I think this is somewhat like art - anyone can draw a face. We can put two eyes, a nose, and a mouth on it - very symbolically. But this is usually nothing more than creating symbols or caricature rather than portrait.

It takes attention to detail and understand of what one sees and, more importantly, what one doesn't see, to draw realistically. It's art because it requires proportion and emotion in equal measure.

Could a critic do this better than a believer? I don't think either side is predisposed to performing better. I suspect that there are some on both sides who could do it well.

And, I think there are a select few who could argue both positions without creating a sock who would be presenting valid argument that they believe in for the position of critic and believer.

To me, that is the most admirable.

The analogy of artistic representation v. symbology captures why I think most of us would be terrible at this. And why most of us are poor judges of how well we understand or have considered the position of the other side. Dr W could be commended for acknowledging that in his post and giving a fair description of how we probably perceive the believing testimony-bearer thinks.

Anyway, if MG is sincere I think he could make a good faith effort to describe the critical argument against the Book of Mormon without creating a sock puppet or pretending. Posters like EA or Nevo often amaze me at how well they convey a position with which they disagree...before showing why it's then flawed. Often, their portrayal of a position is more defined and better defended than the way it was presented. Something to aspire to, I guess.

[_Lemmie]

Posters like EA or Nevo often amaze me at how well they convey a position with which they disagree...before showing why it's then flawed. Often, their portrayal of a position is more defined and better defended than the way it was presented. Something to aspire to, I guess.

Ironically, EA admitted in the thread you linked to that he actually had taken the other side at one point, making some interesting points about what drives an apologist, and about what it takes to show both sides:

I did troll this board as a mock MADB poster a long time ago and was quite successful at it - the trolling part. And I did work over some of the "soft targets" on this board to build up my credibility. I think there is a difference between trying to sound just like an MADB poster and putting on the best defense possible of their faith. Many of the apologists people on this board are used to interacting with aren't very good apologists. They are so infatuated with fundamentalist thought and petty grudges that it robs them of their ability to put on the best case possible for the reasonableness of their beliefs. I think I could pretend to be William Altson for a little while and give people a run for their money. Do I think I can ultimately succeed in defending their faith? No. I'm an atheist for a reason. Do I think I could whip all but the sharpest here in a debate on the subject even with that handicap? Sure. Not terribly humble, I know. William Alston, for example, would crush most people here in a debate over his defense of religious perception and I'd like to think I'm well read enough to provide a serviceable facsimile. Stak could pull it off just the same.

[_honorentheos]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I ran into him (I want to say he was Ralph Man on the old MAD board. Or someone like that.) I say that because I recall a particular discussion where the believing participants were doing rather poorly in both explaining and defending a position. The poster who I think was named Ralphman entered the thread and made a very solid, compelling argument against the critical position. It shut me down. I remember distinctly thinking that it couldn't have come from a TBM but not able to really articulate a good response. It required certain lines of logic that while defeating the critical attack were closer to philisophical theological arguments. But regardless, attacking the Mormon position left the critical attack open to this other argument. It stumped me, too, as it wasn't an argument I was familiar with, went into something I had no knowledge of, and didn't tie into Mormonism in such a way it could be addressed through knowledge of Mormonism. It was kind of surreal and I didn't know what to make of it at the time. It wasn't until later I realized it was the work of someone who wasn't LDS but was very, very skilled in theogical, philosophical debate who probably saw both sides of the discussion as poorly developed. For my part I'm sure whatever I was arguing was guilty. With some experience on this board, I came to suspect it was EA given his knowledge base and a few very specific experiences where he basically laid out both sides of a common argument as if he were a chess coach showing a common game progression to get the players to the point where it would get interesting.

I also tried my hand at it because of this thread -

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18414

My take away was it made me feel creepy and I pissed a lot of people off which I regretted. It wasn't for fun, but an experiment that I learned from. Lesson being its not easy to convey the representation of even a shallow but sincere representative of the opposing side. It's harder still, but there is value in the work it takes to actually logically understand the position of the oppsoing side of an argument, be able to articulate it, and represent one's self with integrity.

Or something. I don't know.

For MG, if you read through the link in this thread you'll see some examples of people on both sides reducing the views of the other into something unrecognizable to those who actually hold the view. Given how Callister did this same thing to critical arguments about the Book of Mormon, it's problematic that you see his 5 theories as meaningful representations. It suggests that you aren't as well versed in the concerns with the Book of Mormon as you may think you are, and are satisfied with this despite almost universal claims in this thread by critics that Callister has it wrong.

If you have integrity, you should acknowledge this is more meaningful than you have to this point.

[_Themis]

I have asked you to articulate how it would work such that one can reasonably think one is getting revelation from a divine being and you have never been able to.

You're right. I can't explain it...except to say that I understand what I understand and know what I know...and that leads to my belief. My experience, at least for me, is that this understanding/knowledge really does come line upon line and precept upon precept...here a little and there a little. With a few...count them on one hand...bedrock 'spiritual anchor' experiences I've had along the way.

But I'm not going to share them here.

You're on your own as to whether or not you get revelation from a Divine Being in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

No one can hand that to you.

Regards,
MG

I've told you over and over and over again I am not asking for your personal experiences. Why can you never understand this? The church talks about it, so why can't not? You cannot because you don't really know. Sure you have convinced yourself you know, but if you did, then you should be able to explain the process without going into your own experiences. You avoid this like the plague, but having been on the inside for most of my life, I understand why. The spiritual experiences falls flat as a way to learn objective truth. Joseph made many claims proven to be false like the ability to translate Egyptian. Looking at the whole he fits conman, even if pious, perfectly. But hey, you probably think God tells people their religion is where they need to be and they mistakenly think that means it is true.

[_I have a question]

If you want to bring up your assessment of Ostler again, why not respond to ihaq's my 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 Lemmie]

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?

[_Sanctorian]

When we try to assign meaning to what 'WE' perceive in our own lives, 'WE' lose sight of the big picture.

It's not strictly a matter of whether we assign meaning...it's whether or not there IS meaning. I happen to think there is.

Regards,
MG

You can assign meaning to anything you want, but that doesn't mean there IS meaning. The sun still rises in the east and sets in the west.

Suppose You gave up your belief in God, what would the happen in the grand scheme? Nothing. The universe would still move forward without you. God would either exist or not exist. Your desire to assign meaning does nothing more than fill a void in your life only. That's the 'big picture' and your insignificance has no part in the play.

[_Chap]

But have you thought of trying to find a more effective way of getting your point over? Your current mode is really not working at all well, is it?

... Do you have anything else of substance to add in regards to any of the topics we've explored under this OP? ...

And yet, amazingly, MG continues to post and post, and post some more. Any attempt to get him to face any substantive issue and its implications for whether the Book of Mormon is God-given or manmade - which is the OP issue - is waved away with vague injunctions to 'look at the big picture'.

I think the take-away message for this thread is something like this:

(a) If one applies the normal criteria for evaluating the historicity of a text of unknown origin, the Book of Mormon shouts 'my milieu of origin is early 19th C. American Protestant Christianity'. Good specific evidence for that has been set out very clearly, for example in the evaluation of the references to olive cultivation in Jacob 5, which were clearly written by someone who had never seen an olive, let alone an olive tree, and knew nothing about how olives were used.

(b) The only opposition to the conclusion in (a) consisted of shouting 'No! Liar! Nonsense!!' (zerinus), or endless vague statements of how the poster feels in a general way about the generality of things in a personal and totally provisional sense (mental gymnast).

On that basis, I think the question in the OP has been answered very clearly: man-made. Even if there are any deities, there is no need to suppose that one or more of them played any role in the production of the Book of Mormon.

[_DrW]

On that basis, I think the question in the OP has been answered very clearly: man-made. Even if there are any deities, there is no need to suppose that one or more of them played any role in the production of the Book of Mormon.

If MG had a shred self respect or integrity, he would acknowledge Chap's summary post above, give it up, and stop wasting everyone's time.

[_Sanctorian]

On that basis, I think the question in the OP has been answered very clearly: man-made. Even if there are any deities, there is no need to suppose that one or more of them played any role in the production of the Book of Mormon.

If MG had a shred self respect or integrity, he would acknowledge Chap's summary post above, give it up, and stop wasting everyone's time.

MG is intellectually dishonest. It would be a God-given miracle for him to admit as much.

[_DrW]

On that basis, I think the question in the OP has been answered very clearly: man-made. Even if there are any deities, there is no need to suppose that one or more of them played any role in the production of the Book of Mormon.

If MG had a shred self respect or integrity, he would acknowledge Chap's summary post above, give it up, and stop wasting everyone's time.

MG is intellectually dishonest. It would be a God-given miracle for him to admit as much.

So, the fact that MG has yet to admit as much could mean that either there is no God, or that God doesn't hold MG in high enough esteem to grant miracles.

Personally, I have had much better luck with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, starting with the fact that it doesn't charge me 10%.