The Nehor wrote: The Book of Mormon is the most touted one. Do you accept it at face-value or dig into deeper and deeper claims of how it was authored by Martin, Hyrum, Sidney, Lucy, and/or Solomon using a rather impressive library of books?
That is anyways the most common use I have seen. Personally, I think Occam's Razor is generally useless outside of the realm of science. History tends towards complication, not simplicity.
Actually, I believe the Razor is pretty useful in all aspects of life (other than religion), as well as the scientific method. And, of course, it only applies to possible explanations offered by people, not to objective reality.
As for the Book of Mormon, it is not so much the contents of the book that you're being asked to accept at face value, of course. Here's what you have to assume in order to even entertain the idea that the contents of the Book of Mormon can be taken seriously: it is a precise translation of an ancient record written in characters no one's ever heard of, while the record itself is nowhere to be found and there is very little hope of it actually being found because it is currently in possession of angel Moroni. Plenty of new assumptions right there. But in order to offer an explanation that the Book of Mormon was authored by Joseph Smith or his contemporaries, one need not make any new assumptions. We already know that humans are capable of writing fictional books that sound like a historical record.
It's not so much about simplicity as it is about making extra assumptions. Of course, "God did it" seems like the simplest explanation. But it doesn't really answer the question of
how it was done. Which is what we want to know.