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

[_mentalgymnast]

And that leaves me wonder exactly why you chose to share it knowing it was a poor argument that was going to be poorly received?

But that's not it, honor.

I think Elder Callister's talk was 'on target' and did point out the 'thinness' of the critic's arguments against the Book of Mormon. My intent was to see if there was anything 'new under the sun' that would cause me to think that maybe the critics have 'something going on' with the five arguments that have been repeatedly brought up. It's obviously not the first time I've heard these arguments. I wasn't convinced, at all, by the responses on this thread that any one of these five arguments brought up by the critics can seriously be entertained.

I surely would not 'bet the farm' on any one of them.

And that's basically it. In all intellectually honesty...I've looked at these five arguments and some others in great detail over the years. The only one that came close to convincing me at one time was the Spaulding Theory. But the more I got into that and at about the same time looking at Word Print Studies carried out by various folks/groups I came away a 'doubter' in that explanation for the Book of Mormon. The other explanations just don't hold water as far as I'm concerned.

The complexity of the Book of Mormon just doesn't lend itself to Joseph Smith writing it at the time that the Book of Mormon was translated. For example, and Elder Callister made this point, can you imagine the preparation and schematic planning/organization that would have had to transpire to write Jacob chapter five? Joseph could have saved himself a LOT of time simply leaving that chapter out of the Book of Mormon. But it's there. And it's important to the overall message of the Book of Mormon in regards to the work of God throughout the ages of mankind.

Yes, I did have a hunch that these arguments would be poorly received. For one thing, the Book of Mormon cannot stand as far as the critics are concerned. Come heck or high water.

Regards,
MG

[_deacon blues]

Re: My question why Joseph Smith Jr. tried to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon.

I am not aware that he did.

Why not?

There is still a lot of confusion and uncertainty surrounding it.

Jussec. First you say that you're not aware that Joseph Smith Jr. tried to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon and now...you're saying there's confusion and uncertainty surrounding it?

Why should there be any confusion and uncertainty about a revelation that Joseph Smith Jr. received and which he himself documented in writing?

The church knows this.

I know this.

Why don't you know this?

Amen

[_Chap]

I think Elder Callister's talk was 'on target' and did point out the 'thinness' of the critic's arguments against the Book of Mormon

Excuse me? In early 19th century American some people publish a book in cod 'Bible English', which they tell us was translated from an unknown language written on golden plates, which golden plates are alas not available for inspection because an angel has taken them away?

And the said book tells an elaborate story of a Jewish colony in America of which no identifiable trace (archeological or genetic) has ever been found?

And it is up to the people who don't believe this book is what it is purported to be to produce arguments against its veracity sufficient to convince the tiny minority whose religious identity demands that it should be true?

Can we return to reality please?

[_honorentheos]

Yes, I did have a hunch that these arguments would be poorly received. For one thing, the Book of Mormon cannot stand as far as the critics are concerned. Come heck or high water.

Regards,
MG

Or archeology, or theology, or it's own doctrine in relation to evolution of the Mormon faith, or...

So you think it's a thin argument that the authorship question that is clouded by time is secondary to the fact, the fact, the Book of Mormon does not correspond to external realities?

Hmmm. MG, are you really sure you took time to understand the critical arguments?

[_zerinus]

The Book of Mormon claims to be a historical accounting of the ancient Americas. It isn't. Its authorship is irrelevant.

The Book of Mormon claims to be a historical accounting of the ancient Americas; and its authorship validates it that it is.

[_Xenophon]

I think Elder Callister's talk was 'on target' and did point out the 'thinness' of the critic's arguments against the Book of Mormon.

MG, hope you are feeling better.

Not to pile on here but the above sentence stuck out to me. Elder Callister's talk did nothing to show the actual "thinness" of critical arguments, rather it showed Callister's "thinness" in understanding those arguments. As honorentheos has already pointed out, the arguments (as they were presented in the talk) were pretty weak caricatures of actual arguments. When we build weak straw men to stand against us, it is not a shock when we easily blow them down. I too am a bit surprised with you here, generally I think your positions are considerably more thought out than this.

This not much different than how some counter-cult ministries (or less informed ex-mos) beat up on Mormonism by starting with incorrect definitions of LDS positions. A practice I am sure you don't appreciate much.

[_Tator]

The Book of Mormon claims to be a historical accounting of the ancient Americas. It isn't. Its authorship is irrelevant.

The Book of Mormon claims to be a historical accounting of the ancient Americas; and its authorship validates it that it is.

Quoting Chap: "Can we return to reality please?"

[_Dr Exiled]

The Book of Mormon claims to be a historical accounting of the ancient Americas. It isn't. Its authorship is irrelevant.

The Book of Mormon claims to be a historical accounting of the ancient Americas; and its authorship validates it that it is.

I don't know what you think you'll accomplish with the bare "yes it's true" response. People here want to see good evidence for your "yes it's true" claim and not easily manipulated emotional feelings that validate some preconceived notion. Seriously, I don't know why you post here.

[_zerinus]

Quoting Chap: "Can we return to reality please?"

Good advice for you to follow.

[_zerinus]

I don't know what you think you'll accomplish with the bare "yes it's true" response. People here want to see good evidence for your "yes it's true" claim and not easily manipulated emotional feelings that validate some preconceived notion. Seriously, I don't know why you post here.

It has not escaped me that my posting here can be a painful experience for some.