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

[_I have a question]

What substantial argument does Brother Callister put forward as "evidence" for concluding the Book of Mormon can only be God-Given?

Here, see if you can find it....
God-Given or Man-Made?

[_Tator]

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

Good advice for you to follow.

I am quite grounded in my Mr. Potato Head fantasy and you are grounded in your Book of Mormon fantasy. The difference is Hasbro created Mr. Potato Head and is real. Your Book of Mormon fantasy is as made up and as imaginary as the Golden Plates.

[_mentalgymnast]

You have simply decided it means what you presupposed it to mean to hold on to your presupposed beliefs which you chose to believe based on nothing more than presumption.

There you go again. Making stuff up. You don't know me. You don't know time/effort I've sacrificed/made in looking into these things we talk about on this board. To simply point the finger (notice I'm not stating specifically which one) and say that I am somehow ignorantly holding on to "nothing more than presumption" is an insult to my integrity and intelligence. But I will let it pass and simply show off your comment for what it is. Making stuff up about people you don't even know but think you can extrapolate their personal history and put it all in a nice tidy little package.

Nice.

You posted a YouTube video. I viewed it. I've read a good deal of science. I'm not a scientist, but I think that science is awesome. I taught science, albeit at the elementary level, during my teaching career. I have nothing but admiration for scientific endeavor. To the point of this thread, however, I am more interested in looking at the Book of Mormon at face value...how did it get here? If the secular/humanistic arguments don't hold water then we need to...if we're honest with ourselves...look at other alternatives. Including the "gift and power of God" option. The science is interesting and needs to be reasoned with. But the Book of Mormon...at face value...needs to be explained. The five arguments against the Book of Mormon that Elder Callister brought up...and it's not like it's the first time we've seen them...I see as sorely lacking in explaining the Book of Mormon's origins.

I was looking on this thread, as I've said, to see if there were any new twists and turns on these five arguments and/or the other content of Elder Callister's talk that I might find new or interesting, but that hasn't been the outcome. We've simply gone off on other little rabbit trails that are basically consuming bandwidth and time at this point. I mean, hey, once IHAQ throws in the "intellectually dishonest" card and Lemmie is throwing in her two cents without engaging in the actual conversation...par for the course... it's time to think about whether the thread is worth my continued time and effort and/or the time of others in reading along.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

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?

I think the authorship questions are primary.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

If the secular/humanistic arguments don't hold water then we need to...if we're honest with ourselves...look at other alternatives. Including the "gift and power of God" option. The science is interesting and needs to be reasoned with. But the Book of Mormon...at face value...needs to be explained.

You're looking at this entirely backwards.
The starting point is to assess if the "God-Given" arguments hold water.
If they don't then, by default it's Man-Made.

So, the arguments for the Book of Mormon being God-Given, what are they?

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

Thanks for those kind regards/wishes. Actually...after a bit more than a month now...I'm still trying to fight off these nasty germs. They seem to migrate from one place to another, stick around and cause grief, and then move on somewhere else. With my wife still back east helping one of our daughters prepare to move back out to Utah and me not feeling 'up to par' I've been checking in to this board with a bit more frequency than I probably would if I was feeling 'top notch' and my wife was back with me and encouraging me to 'buck up' and 'do stuff' even if I'm not feeling well. The worst thing is, is that I haven't been able to go out and do my runs. That is a REAL bummer.

As honorentheos has already pointed out, the arguments (as they were presented in the talk) were pretty weak caricatures of actual arguments.

Obviously, Elder Callister is not going to go all out 'full blown' in regards to any one of these five arguments and/or a few others that could be mentioned. I wouldn't expect him to. If you would care to further elaborate on one of the five arguments against the Book of Mormon that you see as the overall 'winner' and 'killer' of the Book of Mormon's claims of divine origin...go for it. I've just not seen...as I've looked at these arguments in depth over the years...reason to 'bet the farm' on any one of them

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

You are discussing it with people who used to be believers.

Believing in God doesn't necessarily make people happier, and in many cases creates beliefs that are harmful to them and the world.

As I've mentioned multiple times I think we come to a place of 'stalemate' when we approach life, and our experiences, with differing views on the existence of a creator/God. I really don't think we can bridge that gap once it is there. There is a certain degree of dogmatism that exists on both sides. That's why, and I've said this before too, these conversations are in some ways sort of useless and/or non-fruitful.

Personally, I think it is important to point out that belief in God and a Savior/Redeemer are not incoherent with the 'real world'...at least the one I live in. Although (and I believe this fairly strongly), once we look at SIN as being either 'relative' and/or construction of belief/practice...by men...used for control by religious 'overseers' we may then find God somewhat irrelevant in our lives. When Jesus said that we need to come to Him with a "broken heart and a contrite spirit" I think that he is referring to having to give up some/all of our pride (worldly knowledge based purely on the physical (five senses), personal moral whims/desires, holier than thou sorts of practices and behaviors, etc.)

I am the first to admit that believers are going (and I've said this a number of times) to be at a distinct disadvantage discussing 'things of the spirit' because we cannot hand over to someone else the life experience, knowledge, and spiritual inclinations/enlightenment to someone else. That's why the secularists/agnostics on this board see the believers as being, at the end of the day, duped and/or not worthy of serious consideration.

And, if I were in your position, I'd probably see things the same way.

I can only encourage those that believe that there is something more to existence...than, well, existence...that the experience/path of finding that 'spiritual life/light' and possibility/hope for eternal learning/progress is worth the effort.

Regards,
MG

I understand your views. I've had them. You are the one being dogmatic. I don't mind looking at things with the possibility God exists. It's just that your examples don't provide any content to look at. You have to go farther then God might have done it. Also, I know about the spirit, and that the church does talk about it, while you avoid it. I believed it as well, and I suggest I know your POV much better then you realize. It is a major problem I think a part of you doesn't want to engage because of where it will take you, which is why you always avoid it. You also still cannot separate out each individual by what they said and not what someone else said. Beliefs that are harmful from Christianity are things like Jesus will come back and fix everything so things like Global warming can be denied or not worried about. Faith healing instead of real medicine. There are many examples.

I also notice you avoided my other post which deals with questions you asked about.

[_mentalgymnast]

If the secular/humanistic arguments don't hold water then we need to...if we're honest with ourselves...look at other alternatives. Including the "gift and power of God" option. The science is interesting and needs to be reasoned with. But the Book of Mormon...at face value...needs to be explained.

You're looking at this entirely backwards.
The starting point is to assess if the "God-Given" arguments hold water.
If they don't then, by default it's Man-Made.

So, the arguments for the Book of Mormon being God-Given, what are they?

I believe you have it backwards. We need to explain the Book of Mormon...as it is. Where did it come from? The five arguments that Elder Callister reviewed are thin and don't fully explain, at least in my opinion, the origins of the Book of Mormon. If the origins cannot be successfully/completely explained by naturalistic means then I think that...again, if we're honest with ourselves...we need to look at the "gift and power of God" option seriously. And then not prejudge God on the content of the Book of Mormon and whether that content may or may not conform with our understanding/conception of what scripture has to 'look like' in order to be acceptable...coming back to your comments in regards to King James Bible similarities, apparent anachronisms, etc.

It's the WHOLE that needs to be looked at, in my opinion. Explain the book as a whole.

Start, let's say, with Jacob chapter five. Why is it there? Why did Joseph and/or others go to the effort of constructing that chapter and placing it in the Book of Mormon? What about the intelligence/knowledge/creativity...or what have you, that go into that chapter? Go back and read it if you need to. It gets rather complex and there's some good stuff online that will help you with your understanding of the complexity and congruent behavior of that chapter. And that's just one place to start. Which one of the five arguments reviewed by Elder Callister allows for these 'complexities' and cohesive narratives in the Book of Mormon as an aggregate WHOLE?

Regards,
MG

[_huckelberry]

Why does one in trying to read this thread have to wade through all the tiresome comments about Mentalgymnist. Is not his nature more his concern than mine? Did Chap cause this by his prophesy? Is the rut in the road that deep?

[_mentalgymnast]

I also notice you avoided my other post which deals with questions you asked about.

Could you refer me to that post? I move around doing different things during the day and I apparently missed it. I didn't intentionally avoid your post...unless I felt it wasn't worth responding to.

Anyway, I'd be happy to look at the post you're referring to. Copy and paste would work.

Thanks,
MG