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

[_I have a question]

What would be the unique traits that would identify something as "God given"?

[_Chap]

What would be the unique traits that would identify something as "God given"?

That, of course, is the killer question. The apologetic tactic works like this:

(a) Suggest that there is something about the Book of Mormon that is hard to explain by normal means.
(b) Having done (a), suggest that 'God did it' solves the problem.

The arguments for (a) are usually (shall we say) open to criticism. But leaving that aside, the leap to (b) involves introducing a completely undefined and inexplicable factor, whose very existence and logical coherence is open to doubt.

It's like doing this in maths:

Let there be two numbers, A and B, which are not equal to one another.

Now A × 0 = 0
Therefore A = 0/0

Similarly we may show that B = 0/0

So A = 0/0 = B
Thus A = B, showing that all numbers are equal to one another.

Clearly that is nonsense. We got there by performing the operation of dividing by zero, producing the quantity 0/0, which is completely undefined: it has no value at all. That's why dividing by zero is forbidden by the rules of all possible arithmetics.

Introducing God as an explanation is analogous to dividing by zero: once you have done that, you can get to pretty well any result you want. So let's leave it out, OK?

[_I have a question]

What would be the unique traits that would identify something as, unequivocally, man-made?

[_zerinus]

Which method did Joseph use? One, two, three, four, or five?

It does not matter. The "fall" has been disproven and since the Book of Mormon teaches that there was a fall, the Book of Mormon is false.

You are missing the point. The argument is not about whether the Book of Mormon is true or not, but who wrote it, and how it came to be. To suggest that Joseph Smith wrote it himself, would be like suggesting that he wrote Shakespeare, or a book of similar literary complexity, which he was incapable of doing. His own claim was that it was the product of a miraculous occurrance. Tad R. Calister’s argument is that nobody has yet been able to come up with a better explanation. If you think that you have now found one, let’s hear it.

[Guest]

The argument is not about whether the Book of Mormon is true or not, but who wrote it, and how it came to be.

Well no, the argument in this thread has been whether the Book of Mormon is true or not. It's pretty clear that if it is not "true" then it doesn't matter who wrote it or how it came to be.

To suggest that Joseph Smith wrote it himself, would be like suggesting that he wrote Shakespeare, or a book of similar literary complexity, which he was incapable of doing.

Why? Can you prove any of that? Or are you agreeing with Callister that Joseph Smith was "illiterate, ignorant, and incapable" ?

His own claim was that it was the product of a miraculous occurrance. Tad R. Calister’s argument is that nobody has yet been able to come up with a better explanation. If you think that you have now found one, let’s hear it.

Actually, that's a fallacy that a "better" explanation has to be found. If you are claiming it's true, then you need to come up with a proof for that; those who disagree have no responsibility to prove otherwise.

Please see Chap's post, as he already explained this.

[_Chap]

To suggest that Joseph Smith wrote it himself, would be like suggesting that he wrote Shakespeare, or a book of similar literary complexity, which he was incapable of doing. His own claim was that it was the product of a miraculous occurrance. Tad R. Calister’s argument is that nobody has yet been able to come up with a better explanation. If you think that you have now found one, let’s hear it.

Let's think. A book written in a not very good version of 'Bible English' appears in an early 19th century American milieu. It's full of echoes of the religious consciousness of that time and place, and makes all kinds of clearly non-historical claims that also reflect the way people of that time and place thought about the past.

The person who produces it, Joseph Smith, claims it was a miraculously produced text, and it is claimed that he did not have the ability to write the book himself. But if not him, then who? Assuming for the sake of argument that Smith can not have been the author, two possible answers might be:

(a) Some other unknown person in early 19th century America wrote this text, and Joseph Smith merely acted as a front for the operation.

(b) A being of an unknown nature, location and powers (a 'deity') miraculously preserved this text and caused Smith to generate a translation by miraculous means, involving seeing visions in a lump of rock.

Somehow, I think I'd bet on (a) every time.

[_I have a question]

The other red flag for me is that the way it was produced has changed.

For generations the Church portrayed it as being produced by Joseph staring at the plates through magic spectacles. Now, it was produced without using the plates but by reading words verbatim off a rock. Add that to the numerous obvious literary rip-offs and anthropological mistakes and the overwhelming weight of argument sits on the side of it being blatantly man-made. There is nothing that marks the Book of Mormon as being God-Given other than what people with a vested interest claimed about it.

If the document were about any other religion, believing Mormons would see the faults in the God-Given position as clearly as everyone else does.

[_zerinus]

Let's think. A book written in a not very good version of 'Bible English' appears in an early 19th century American milieu. It's full of echoes of the religious consciousness of that time and place, and makes all kinds of clearly non-historical claims that also reflect the way people of that time and place thought about the past.

None of those statements are true or can be substantiated.

The person who produces it, Joseph Smith, claims it was a miraculously produced text, and it is claimed that he did not have the ability to write the book himself. But if not him, then who? Assuming for the sake of argument that Smith can not have been the author, two possible answers might be:

(a) Some other unknown person in early 19th century America wrote this text, and Joseph Smith merely acted as a front for the operation.

(b) A being of an unknown nature, location and powers (a 'deity') miraculously preserved this text and caused Smith to generate a translation by miraculous means, involving seeing visions in a lump of rock.

Somehow, I think I'd bet on (a) every time.

That amounts to saying, "I don't believe there is a God, therefore he couldn't have written it," which again misses the point. The point is, Is there a viable alternative to Joseph Smith's claim? While the historicity of the Book of Mormon may be questioned, the historicity of Joseph Smith cannot. We know who he was, when and where he lived, how old he was, what he was capable of, and what he did. Unless you can come up with a viable alternative to Joseph Smith's own claim, his claim remains unchallenged. Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant.

[_Lemmie]

For generations the Church portrayed it as being produced by Joseph staring at the plates through magic spectacles. Now, it was produced without using the plates but by reading words verbatim off a rock.

And they only changed the story because too many people were starting to know otherwise and they were getting caught in the lie.

Bottom line, it's the LDS religion's obligation to prove their claim that Joseph Smith had gold plates and read letters off a rock out of his hat and they can't.

[Guest]

The other red flag for me is that the way it was produced has changed.

For generations the Church portrayed it as being produced by Joseph staring at the plates through magic spectacles. Now, it was produced without using the plates but by reading words verbatim off a rock. Add that to the numerous obvious literary rip-offs and anthropological mistakes and the overwhelming weight of argument sits on the side of it being blatantly man-made. There is nothing that marks the Book of Mormon as being God-Given other than what people with a vested interest claimed about it.

If the document were about any other religion, believing Mormons would see the faults in the God-Given position as clearly as everyone else does.

That is absolute rubbish and totally untrue. The Church has never made any claims about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon that is different from the attested historical data. The artwork showing Joseph Smith reading from the plates is just artwork. It is an artistic impression, like thousands of similar religious art produced by Christians throughout the centuries. None of them are meant to be historically accurate.