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

[_I have a question]

In what way(s) does the content of the Book of Mormon suggest it was produced in a way that is inexplicable except that God produced it?

Listen more carefully to Tad R. Callister's talk to get some ideas.

I've listened, can't see it.
Give us a summary.

[_honorentheos]

I'll argue again that believers in the Book of Mormon need to account for the influence Cowdery had on it's production. Clearly something changed when he became scribe as almost the entire Book of Mormon that we have today came about after that yet took significantly less time than was involved with other scribes to produce less material of unknown quality.

Cowdery accelerated the production of the Book of Mormon. Church history affirms that Smith and Cowdery discussed the themes and content of the Book of Mormon. Cowdery's view of the godhead is reflected in the original 1830 version which amends as the leadership around Joseph changes. All of this is verifiable fact, not to mention the old hymn printed in the T&S that suggested Cowdery did not in fact stay true to his testimony. Otherwise, why were the saints singing about their faith inspite of this?

It's also dishonest for the speaker to suggest that Cowdery, on his deathbed, held to his testimony considering he had returned to the Church a poor and broken man in need of their charity.

But again, it doesn't really matter given the Book of Mormon clearly tells us more about the people in the 19th c. frontier than it does about any population of peoples in the pre-Columbian Americas. It lacks coherence with external reality. How it was produced is a non-starter if it can not be established the book has valid points of connection to the ancient Americas. Good luck with that.

[_Fence Sitter]

There are so many problems with this poor argument, but if you really find it persuasive, then why are you not Islamic?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

There are so many problems with this poor argument, but if you really find it persuasive, then why are you not Islamic?

Seriously. At least with Islam you don't have a collaborator or two. You don't have plates, rocks, hats, or other props. You just have God and his prophet crapping out more nonsense.

- Doc

[_Themis]

Anybody can claim that any book was written by someone other than the purported author. That is equally true of Shakespeare's plays, or Charles Dickens' novels, or Mark Twain's, or anybody else's. When somebody makes such a claim, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claim; not on the purported author to disprove it. A man is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

Which of those literary genius's called the Book of Mormon chloroform in print?

[_mentalgymnast]

I've listened, can't see it.

Here's why. If you come into the discussion with a presupposition that a creator/God doesn't exist...you're not going to see God's hand in anything. Makes sense, right?

I go with Elder Callister, and here's why. It's actually kind of simple. I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God. Operating under this premise/assumption when I'm listening to Elder Callister's recap of the five humanistic arguments that have sort of worn thin in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, I am OPEN to seeing God's hand in it rather than taking an automatic default position of "It can't be the work of God, because there isn't a God". If you don't believe in God in the first place you HAVE to come up with other alternatives besides the "gift and power of God".

It's really that simple...isn't it?

I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that would demonstrate that Joseph and/or others whipped up this book. I have seen some valiant efforts. But nothing that would pull me away from looking at the possibility that God was behind it. And it is at this point that the believers and non-believers go their own separate ways.

Another thing. The Book of Mormon testifies over and over again of Jesus Christ and His mission. Same thing as I said earlier...if you don't believe and/or hold open the possibility...that Jesus Christ was/is the Redeemer of mankind then the Book of Mormon isn't going to have any relevance/meaning to you. OTOH, if you believe and/or have hope that Jesus is the Christ then you are going to look at/read the Book of Mormon with different eyes/ears than the non-believer. And again, at that point believers and non-believers go their own separate ways.

I think that Elder Callister did a good job of...as I said in the OP...putting everything inside of a nutshell and telling it like it is. It's so simple, really. Either the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be or it is not. The critics have not been able to put the Book of Mormon into the trash heap of history. The book LIVES. It is read/studied by millions of people who have a greater faith/belief in God/Christ because of their testimonies of that book.

Is that not a good thing?

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

I pick option #5. Joseph Smith was a genius shaped by his unique talents and his environment, just like Da Vinci, Mozart, Charlie Parker, Alexander the Great, etc. Callister did leave out one possibility that people with a magic world view, like evangelicals and TBM's would think possible. The devil made him do it, in order to add another confusing sect to Christianity. The LDS explanation of reading dictation off a rock, out of a hat is a magic world view possibilty, but it doesn't fit with reality.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[_spotlight]

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.

Is occurance a new word combining occurrence and trance? Just curious.

Sorry I'm late to the party. Looks like chap and others have adequately responded to this.
Your argument is like saying because I can't figure out how David Copperfield performed his illusions that they were not illusions but were instances of actual magic. All we need to make the analogy more exact is for David Copperfield's performance to include a statement that he is indeed using actual magic rather than illusions of his own creative genius and for those who know him to state that he's really not smart enough to come up with such fantastic illusions on his own. Then enough time to pass by where no one has figured out how one of his illusions was done while most of the others have been explained (ie like the book of Abraham).

Considering the disgusting behavior Joseph displayed in marrying his own adopted daughters, you become nothing more than somebody guilty of excusing criminal behavior and if there were a god of blaspheming his/her/its character.

Moreover it seems you are the one missing the point:

Josiah Stowel sworn: says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months; had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone...

Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to book, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm

[Guest]

Either the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be or it is not.

My question is a simple one. Yet the answer seems to be that I would need to want it to be what it purports to be before I can see it to be what it purports to be. Which is exactly how confirmation bias and religious scams work. If what makes it God-Given is simply my belief that it is God-Given well, we can apply that to anything and everything including a Magic 8 Ball.

So let me ask again....

What is definitively and uniquely "miraculous" about the Book of Mormon that marks it out to be what it purports to be (excluding the statements of people who had a vested interest in claiming it was miraculous)?

*If the answer is "nothing" then just say "nothing". If the answer is "something" then simply explain what that "something" is.

If it helps, here are the parameters for decision making that Tad Callister lays down himself:

That is the genius of the Book of Mormon—there is no middle ground. It is either the word of God as professed, or it is a total fraud. This book does not merely claim to be a moral treatise or theological commentary or collection of insightful writings. It claims to be the word of God—every sentence, every verse, every page. Joseph Smith declared that an angel of God directed him to gold plates, which contained the writings of prophets in ancient America, and that he translated those plates by divine powers. If that story is true, then the Book of Mormon is holy scripture, just as it professes to be; if not, it is a sophisticated but, nonetheless, diabolical hoax.

https://www.LDS.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-book-of-mormon-a-book-from-god?lang=eng

Unfortunately Brother Callister goes on to outline that confirmation bias is the determining factor in answer to the question...

Likewise, we must make a simple choice with the Book of Mormon: it is either of God or the devil. There is no other option. For a moment I invite you to take a test that will help you determine the true nature of this book. Ask yourself if the following scriptures from the Book of Mormon draw you closer to God or to the devil:

So if the words of Jenn Kamp Rowling draw me closer to God than to Satan, does that mean the Harry Potter series should be proclaimed as God-Given?

And then Brother Callisters blames the reader in advance for not agreeing with him...

An honest, unbiased reading of the Book of Mormon will bring someone to the same conclusion as my great-great-grandfather, namely: “The devil could not have written it—it must be from God.”

Brother Callister's attempts at portraying the Book of Mormon as "God-Given" are pathetically childish and manipulative. More fool you for swallowing it.

On the other hand, from the top of my head the things that mark it as man-made would include KJV Bible plagiarism. Hard to imagine how that can be rationalised to fit a "God-Given" story of a people that would be long dead before the KJV Bible was even thought of. Remember Brother Callister said it's either "all true (all from the engravings on gold plates made by Nephite Prophets) or it's a big fat hoax"). The inclusion of the KJV Bible content destroys Callisters position entirely, by his own standards set for the book.

It can also be shown that the Book of Mormon contains an extraordinary number of unacknowledged Biblical quotes. The exact number is difficult to pin down, for a variety of reasons, but can safely be said to exceed several hundred. The New Testament is by far the most fruitful source of these quotes. Of the twenty-six books of the New Testament, twenty of them are represented by one or more quotes in the Book of Mormon. The Old Testament also furnished a small number of unacknowledged quotes. Among these are quotes from Genesis, Exodus, Job, Micah, Hosea and Psalms.

Acknowledged Quotes

Of the acknowledged quotes, Isaiah furnishes the largest amount of material. In general, this material is quoted almost verbatim from the King James Version. Some passages, however, do show a fairly substantial amount of reworking. For example, Smith embroidered on Isaiah 29:11,12 to transform the text into a 'prophecy' of the Anthon affair. (2 Nephi 27:15 and following).

The changes that were made to the text are illuminating. In general, most of the changes occur in the italicized portions of the King James Version (which the King James Translators employed to indicate that the translation is not original to the text). Smith either dropped or modified the italicized phrases. In some cases, the changes made to the text result in impossible readings. For example, 2 Nephi 19:1 adds the phrase 'red sea' to Isaiah 9:1, which makes no sense in the geographical context.

In several cases, the Book of Mormon follows King James Version translation errors. In the verse just cited, for example, Isaiah 9:1 should read 'honor' in the place of 'grievously afflict'. The Book of Mormon makes the same mistake.

http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-mormon-problems.htm#Bible

Of particular interest are quotes that appear long before their sources were written. These include several hundred New Testament quotes and allusions, as well as one Old Testament anachronism. Malachi 4:1-2 is quoted or alluded to several times in First and Second Nephi. (See 1 Nephi 22:15 and 2 Nephi 26:4, for example). The problem is that Lehi and his family supposedly left Jerusalem before the Babylonian conquest - Malachi, however, was a post-exilic prophet.

It's no longer a contest.

[_spotlight]

Here's why. If you come into the discussion with a presupposition that a creator/God doesn't exist...you're not going to see God's hand in anything. Makes sense, right?

The presupposition would be that a god exists since there is no evidence for that position.

I go with Elder Callister, and here's why. It's actually kind of simple. I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God. Operating under this premise/assumption...

presupposition

...when I'm listening to Elder Callister's recap of the five humanistic arguments that have sort of worn thin in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, I am OPEN to seeing God's hand in it rather than taking an automatic default position of "It can't be the work of God, because there isn't a God". If you don't believe in God in the first place you HAVE to come up with other alternatives besides the "gift and power of God".

It's really that simple...isn't it?

No, its really this simple:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA&t=98s
The fall has been disproved, therefore a book that states there was one is false. If there is a god, he cannot be the Mormon god of the Book of Mormon.

I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that would demonstrate that Joseph and/or others whipped up this book.

And I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that there is a god, but I have seen conclusive evidence that a fall never happened therefore a book that states there was a fall must be false.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA&t=98s

I have seen some valiant efforts. But nothing that would pull me away from looking at the possibility that God was behind it.

Then your intellectual capacity is stunted.

And it is at this point that the believers and non-believers go their own separate ways.

Believers and those who can think clearly, fixed it for you. I realize that you like to fantasize that the two positions are somehow equal but they are not. Yours is the position of presupposition.

Another thing. The Book of Mormon testifies over and over again of Jesus Christ and His mission. Same thing as I said earlier...if you don't believe and/or hold open the possibility...that Jesus Christ was/is the Redeemer of mankind then the Book of Mormon isn't going to have any relevance/meaning to you. On the other hand, if you believe and/or have hope that Jesus is the Christ then you are going to look at/read the Book of Mormon with different eyes/ears than the non-believer. And again, at that point believers and non-believers go their own separate ways.

In other words if you are already gullible enough to believe in Jebus you are more than half way there! Let Joseph complete your delusion.

I think that Elder Callister did a good job of...as I said in the OP...putting everything inside of a nutshell and telling it like it is. It's so simple, really. Either the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be or it is not.

It is not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA&t=98s

The critics have not been able to put the Book of Mormon into the trash heap of history.

I just did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA&t=98s

The book LIVES.

"And it came to pass" I'm on the edge of my seat! Chloroform in print.

It is read/studied by millions of people who have a greater faith/belief in God/Christ because of their testimonies of that book.

Is that not a good thing?

If we ignore their use of antidepressants perhaps.