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

[_Lemmie]

answer my inquiries

I've documented my opinion, see viewtopic.php?p=1049507#p1049507

[_zerinus]

What I see is that you have not answered the question that I posed to you. That's part of your spectacle.

I don’t believe you are interested in the answer to anything; neither are you interested in establishing the truth or falsehood of anything. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What I see is that you have not answered the question that I posed to you. That's part of your spectacle.

I don’t believe you are interested in the answer to anything; neither are you interested in establishing the truth or falsehood of anything. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

- Doc

[_huckelberry]

The Book of Mormon takes the raw idea of a restoration of Christianity and gives it a background myth of exodus and a new life which gives vitality to Mormonism. It is prophetic of the actual exodus and new life experience of the church in its westward migration.

A story which undergirds a living community is something that for people has spiritual power.

The book has vision and purpose despite the limited rhetorical skill of its language.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi MG -

For what it's worth, the few threads on this subject that were active the last few days have been valuable for me in illuminating how much the believer and the (perhaps limited to secular?) critic really have in common. How so?

The secular critic of the Book of Mormon looks at the evidence available independent of any spiritual witness and sees an incredibly compelling case against the book being written by ancient Israelite migrants to the Americas.

OK.

There is hardly a branch of the sciences that lacks from form of evidence that works against the Book of Mormon being ancient, while sociologically the Book of Mormon is very easy to align with religious and mistaken cultural views prevalent in the time period when Joseph Smith claimed to have been translating it.

I am not a Brant Gardner and/or a John Sorenson. They are the ones you would have to go back and forth with in response to this.

When challenged to then provide a definitive explanation for how the Book of Mormon was written in the 19th Century if this is the case, the secular critic can postulate a number of plausible theories that make use of various forms of evidence.

Yes.

But given the state of the historical record and what information is available, it's unlikely the critic could defend any potential explanation to the satisfaction of the believer.

OK.

On the other hand, the believer looks at the divine claims of origin for the Book of Mormon and experiences compelling perhaps moving examples that support that the Book of Mormon is of God and is working to the betterment of human kind when allowed to do so. It dovetails into Mormon explanations for many important theological concepts regarding the importance of the plan of salvation, the universal nature of God's love but the necessity of covenant in order to receive promised blessings, or as a witness of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Among many other things.

OK.

When challenged to provide definitive explanation for the various signs of human error, misinformation, anachronisms, or plagiarism from the KJV of the Bible, the believers who choose to engage with these problems postulate a range of theories that make use of the evidence explained through a believing paradigm.

OK.

But given the state of the historical record and claims made about the translation process, it's unlikely the believer will be able to defend their theory to the satisfaction of the all but the most uninformed of critics.

That may be, but I don't know that for a fact.

The human condition is tragic comedy. Our progress as a species seems to come from an innate viciousness that drives us to relentlessly attack what we see as a vulnerability. It doesn't matter if it is in a person's character or their opinion. And frankly, it's a necessary condition of progress just as death and the destruction of the less fit is a necessary condition for evolutionary forces to be effective.

That doesn't make it any less ugly, though.

Nothing to disagree with there.

Callister turning the critical argument against the Book of Mormon into a straw man about authorship that satisfies his believing BYU audience is not really that different than watching you being bludgeoned like a baby seal in this thread

Now, would you specify and go into a bit more detail on this "strawman" you're referring to? Baby seal? What a comparison. Ouch!

Unlike some, I don't enjoy that kind of spectacle.

What do you think about the construction of false narratives? And then as an 'add on' to that then stating an opinion based upon the false narrative? Now, if I'm not mistaken, that's a strawman. I think I recognize that one.

But I'm not interested in defending you, either.

I wouldn't want you to. What I would expect, however, is for other people to actually be honest and not make stuff up.

You made a point to defend the obvious issues with Callister's talk so apparently you aren't that concerned with fair representation or taking what every person in this thread has essentially maintained when they noted that Callister had it categorically wrong in how he presented the argument.

Would you mind defending this point you're making please? I agree with Callister that the five arguments of the critics that he reviewed are flawed.

I gained from revisiting the question of Jacob 5 as an anachronism...

As did the rest of us.

...as it's been years since last time I looked into the research. I also revisited some old and interesting threads. Sometimes we only appreciate where we are when we catch a glimpse of where we once were?

OK.

There is potential for value, and it isn't necessarily tied to being met by a partner of good faith on the opposing side of an argument so long as they provide a vehicle for movement in the discussion.

Agreed.

That said, religion and it's worst manifestations occur in many forms in these discussions. We feel obligated to explain the meaning of our own position when the were not gained through reason.

I hope that is not applicable to me in the strictest sense that you seem to be making application. I would hope that I am one of those that learns through study and also by faith. I see that as a positive, rather than a negative.

We feel obligated to extend the security we feel in knowing a certain thing can't be to then asserting why this other thing must then be so.

Maybe a couple or three examples that you believe might apply to someone like me?

We create hope in a meaningless universe...

That is your assumption/presupposition.

...of indifference...

Again, that is where you as an atheist/agnostic are coming from.

...that makes religion of all human endeavors.

I think that as mankind has evolved this is less the reality/case.

We call those things furthest in our past religion or superstition with a lost sense that to those living at the time they were the best humanity had to offer.

Before the Age of Discovery and Science, yes.

What they share that we hide from is their imperfect, anthropocentric nature which guarantees they will be seen as absurd and the religious superstitions of the species some time in the future...if we can make it that far.

That is your prognostication.

Anyway, if you do find yourself inclined to summarize the critical position in a way you believe I and perhaps others would accept as a reasonable representation rather than the caricature Callister propped up for the amusement of his audience as he whacked at and broke them like piñatas, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

To be honest, I don't think you'll see anything different from/out of me than what you're already seeing. Although my views do evolve here and there. I know they have in the last twenty-five years or so. What you won't see from me, however, is any intended "intellectual dishonesty".

You can be sure that I am well aware of the critical positions and have read extensively...for a lay person and a 'regular guy'...and that I can empathize with those folks/critics who have left the LDS Faith...and also those that have left faith in a creator/God or any other god as an ancient relic/superstition of early man before the advent of Discovery and Science.

Regards,
MG

[_Sanctorian]

To be honest, I don't think you'll see anything different from/out of me than what you're already seeing. Although my views do evolve here and there. I know they have in the last twenty-five years or so. What you won't see from me, however, is any intended "intellectual dishonesty".

You can be sure that I am well aware of the critical positions and have read extensively...for a lay person and a 'regular guy'...and that I can empathize with those folks/critics who have left the LDS Faith...and also those that have left faith in a creator/God or any other god as an ancient relic/superstition of early man before the advent of Discovery and Science.

Regards,
MG

This might be the most accurate statement I have read from you MG. Why then do you think your posts attract the type of responses you get instead of some other believers that post here?

[_honorentheos]

Excellent post, honorentheos. Rational and reasonable. Mentalgymnast would do well to take your advice.

WOW Really? Can't respond to substantive posts because of non-substantive posts you see as attacks? The most substantive and knowledgeable posters I've seen around here on both sides tend to avoid what they consider non-substance and just deal with the substance. By doing so it dulls the blade of attacks. Spending all day with perceived attacks is never ending job. I'm not applying for it and nether should you. honorentheos has been the most substantive poster in this thread, yet you have ignored a lot of his requests. Not the way to good discussions. Just a thought.

Thanks, Lemmie and Themis. Once in a while I have my moments.

I agree that MG would also benefit from Themis' advice as well. Knowing when not to say anything is a skill I wish I had in greater capacity myself.

[_Lemmie]

Excellent post, honorentheos. Rational and reasonable. Mentalgymnast would do well to take your advice.

WOW Really? Can't respond to substantive posts because of non-substantive posts you see as attacks? The most substantive and knowledgeable posters I've seen around here on both sides tend to avoid what they consider non-substance and just deal with the substance. By doing so it dulls the blade of attacks. Spending all day with perceived attacks is never ending job. I'm not applying for it and nether should you. honorentheos has been the most substantive poster in this thread, yet you have ignored a lot of his requests. Not the way to good discussions. Just a thought.

Thanks, Lemmie and Themis. Once in a while I have my moments.

I agree that MG would also benefit from Themis' advice as well. Knowing when not to say anything is a skill I wish I had in greater capacity myself.

Bolding added by me, because I agree, that is a life lesson all by itself. It takes discipline, patience, and a calmness of spirit that is a constant challenge to maintain. Well worth it, though, when it all comes together!

Thanks again, honorentheos, for your posts in this thread, it has been a sincere pleasure to read both your philosophical thoughts and your research findings, as well as your scholastic process as you researched this particular subject. Well done.

[Guest]

MG -

I think it will be most helpful if I combine a number of your questions or requests since they seem to relate to the same issue. See below:

Callister turning the critical argument against the Book of Mormon into a straw man about authorship that satisfies his believing BYU audience is not really that different than watching you being bludgeoned like a baby seal in this thread

Now, would you specify and go into a bit more detail on this "strawman" you're referring to? Baby seal? What a comparison. Ouch!

Unlike some, I don't enjoy that kind of spectacle.

What do you think about the construction of false narratives? And then as an 'add on' to that then stating an opinion based upon the false narrative? Now, if I'm not mistaken, that's a strawman. I think I recognize that one.

You made a point to defend the obvious issues with Callister's talk so apparently you aren't that concerned with fair representation or taking what every person in this thread has essentially maintained when they noted that Callister had it categorically wrong in how he presented the argument.

Would you mind defending this point you're making please? I agree with Callister that the five arguments of the critics that he reviewed are flawed.

You and I both agree that what Callister presented as critical arguments are flawed.

You and I also agree that if we could definitively answer the question of who authored the Book of Mormon, it would resolve so many tangential issues that get debated.

Callister proposed something that you agree with - that being there are five critical positions which either singularly or in some combination must be shown as proven regarding how the Book of Mormon might have been produced in the 19th century in order to discount the claim by Smith that it was produced by the gift and power of God.

But I could equally assert that there are a few means through which Smith would have been able to produce the Book of Mormon as claimed through the gift and power of God that must be proven as 100% certain or it's proven fraudulent.

For fun, here is my critical version of Callister's treatment of the authorship question:

1 - Tight Translation.
History and witnesses tell us Smith not only read off the words he saw through the interpreters but would spell out words with which he was unfamiliar. If the Book of Mormon is actually produced by the gift and power of God, then every single word would have to be God-approved. Evidences of Hebrew-like structures Smith couldn't possibly have known help support this.

So what about the plagiarized mistakes from the KJV of the Bible? The descriptions of the Godhead that conflate Jesus with God the Eternal Father? The archeological claims that aren't found anywhere? Or the discovered examples of known late 18th and early 19th c. works that were parroting the Bible that also show the same Hebrew-like structures?

This can't be true.

2 - Loose Translation
Apologists who have studied the Book of Mormon and it's claimed context have arrived at a theory that the Book of Mormon wasn't translated word-for-word, or letter-for-letter given to Smith by God. Rather, the text and the context are best understood when we realize that God was working through Joseph Smith to provide a translation for modern people that was true to the message but out of necessity was a loose translation of what was actually recorded. This explains issues with the text describing a vast array of what would otherwise be issues such as technology not evident in the new world, why Joseph Smith may have inserted entire chapters from the KJV of the Bible into the text, or why the sermon on the mount in 3 Nephi corresponds with the first telling in the New Testament rather than the telling more likely to be accurate to the words Jesus may have spoke recorded in Luke.

So what about the cureloms and cumons? Nephite monetary systems? What about chiasmus?

This can't be true.

3 - Those Darned Brits
Some have claimed the Book of Mormon is a work of multiple translations that span varying stages of the development of the English language including some that predate the KJV. This helps explain certain grammar forms and saying that seem almost "hick" in nature but are claimed to be sophisticated examples of the marvelous nature of God's work that critics cannot account for exactly.

But, well, why the entire narrative in the Book of Mormon about the importance of the Gold Plates if God was going to give Joseph a secondary translation and then let him further influence the text, grammar, and language? And once one expands the narrative this far, hasn't one completely destroyed the faithful argument that Joseph's involvement can't be explained by critics when believers are making up other tiers of authors to explain the text?

This can't be true. Though, it get's points for flipping the script on Calllister's 5 points.

Those are three off the top of my head, MG, and you probably finished reading them and were dismissing them as entirely misrepresenting the discussion. Authorship by Joseph Smith wasn't disproven by any of what I wrote, it just reduced the believing theories used to defend the content of the Book of Mormon into something easy to brush off, right?

So, what about authorship being primary if it's inaccessible to us?

I could assert that my preference is for video evidence of Smith being given the gold plates by the angel Moroni. Or, as a second choice the physical subjugation of the gold plates to scientific scrutiny.

Impossible? Probably in the second case and certainly in the former but it is a gold standard that would prove you were right about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

We're basically left looking to the content of the Book of Mormon itself to learn about who authored it, when, and possibly gain some insight into how though whether you are a believer or critic the question of how is honestly lost to us.

So, you may protest that unless we can provide an alternative to Smith's claim that can be validated we must accept his word.

I say no, and “F” no. Smith cheated on his wife repeatedly, lied to her about it and when it couldn't be hidden longer claimed God told him to do it. There's no way we ought to give Smith a pass and take his word for anything. Especially not when he claims God is involved. I'm sorry but Smith lost that privilege by his own actions. Don't care what the Givens have to say. He lied to Emma, he cheated on her, he used God as an excuse. Even the weak excuse for this the Givens offer up doesn't erase his lying or cheating, they just white-wash it with the "God commanded it" rational and then ask that we consider how much better our lives are because of Smith's role as prophet...ugh.

Callister's assertion is specifically created so he could then present the argument in a way that he could easily defeat it. You brought them to a message board predominately occupied by those who are critical of the Book of Mormon being an ancient document and almost to a person the point made to you was that Callister wasn't presenting an argument that critics really make. You seem to feel this is because the critics can't answer this question about authorship definitively, yet ignore that you can't, either. Who authored the Book of Mormon is lost information to us as of right now.

I don't know if I can make it any more clear. Callister created strawmen that he knocked over for the entertainment of his audience. It failed to actually represent the arguments critics make when they debate the Book of Mormon, and they glossed over how inaccessible the authorship question is for LDS given the pat Sunday School answer can't satisfy the issues. Thus, we have Skousen, Ostler, Sorenson, Gardner, Hardy telling us that it isn't necessary to have a literal belief in the Book of Mormon's historicity...the theories on the believing side are legion trying to account for how Joseph Smith could have received the Book of Mormon as an ancient text from God.

So, how about we agree that Callister's point was a pep rally for believers and when we get together as participants in discussion we approach the issues from the perspective of what is actually accessible to us?

We feel obligated to extend the security we feel in knowing a certain thing can't be to then asserting why this other thing must then be so.

Maybe a couple or three examples that you believe might apply to someone like me?

When Christ told the disciples that one of them would betray him, they all responded, "Is it I?" One of them knew while the others were sincere in their question. It isn't controversial as a statement about human behavior. It applies to everyone. It wouldn't hurt to work on learning how to recognize when you do it because that also happens to be difficult work while it's easy to nit-pick others.

We create hope in a meaningless universe...

That is your assumption/presupposition.

Would you care to provide an example of meaning that applies to your life that is not a construct of either yourself or your culture?

...of indifference...

Again, that is where you as an atheist/agnostic are coming from.

I'm leaning towards absurdist these days. It would be a cruel joke on humanity that we are biologically compelled to find meaning in a universe where there is none. But for it to be a joke there would need to be intention behind it. It's just darkly funny to us because, yeah, it's circular like that. You can create something upon which to construct hope, but to imagine it is something other than a construct is delusion. Disagree? Feel free to provide an example.

...that makes religion of all human endeavors. We call those things furthest in our past religion or superstition with a lost sense that to those living at the time they were the best humanity had to offer. What they share that we hide from is their imperfect, anthropocentric nature which guarantees they will be seen as absurd and the religious superstitions of the species some time in the future...if we can make it that far.

I think that as mankind has evolved this is less the reality/case...Before the Age of Discovery and Science, yes..That is your prognostication.

You misunderstand. To those living at the time, what they knew wasn't "religion" in a mystical sense. It was truth. Newton was an alchemist, religionist, physicist, and mathematician and really more of the former than the later. When a doctor applied leaches and researched humours, they weren't being superstitious they were using the knowledge available to them at the time. Likewise, when a person uses a certain medication or chooses a certain diet they believe doing so will benefit them in what is rational to them. It is time that weeds out the flaws in peoples logic not rationality itself.

So when I note that what seems rational to us today will likely be the superstition and religion of tomorrow it isn't pointing at you and Mormonism. It's pointing at us as 21st c. human beings. Or perhaps not if we revert backwards into a dark ages of sorts in which case the hodge podge of beliefs and superstitions will be codified for future generations to suffer from I guess.

You can be sure that I am well aware of the critical positions and have read extensively

No, I can't. Seriously, that not's something you can ask of anyone on faith. You could demonstrate it, though, by doing as I asked and showing this is true by summarizing the critical arguments in a way with which I could agree.

ETA: Edited three times because I'm a dope who sucks at proof-reading and brackets.

[_honorentheos]

Bolding added by me, because I agree, that is a life lesson all by itself. It takes discipline, patience, and a calmness of spirit that is a constant challenge to maintain. Well worth it, though, when it all comes together!

Thanks again, honorentheos, for your posts in this thread, it has been a sincere pleasure to read both your philosophical thoughts and your research findings, as well as your scholastic process as you researched this particular subject. Well done.

Thanks, and likewise. For all the distractions over nothing the dialog that occurred has been informative for me and moved the discussion. I appreciate your timely comments and input that made it possible to explore whatever themes arose.

I'm sincerely hoping MG will at least attempt to demonstrate his understanding of the critical position, though. It would do so much in terms of both supporting his position and making dialog on the topics interesting and valuable.