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

[_honorentheos]

with your post being the equivilent of someone saying, "See, we're number 1!"

Ok. Of course it appeals to YOU. You believe the propoganda it presented.

So one has to really wonder why you shared it?

It really was old school, egregious propaganda, right? I think that's what shocked me. This was a devotional, given at BYU, so we have an entire arena of college students, graduate students, Professors and staff--a large collection of fairly well educated people. This talk, however, was perplexing in its simplistic approach, its regurgitation of things that have clearly been disproved, and a lack of logic that was just embarrassing to read. I can't imagine having to sit through that and keep a straight face.

At first I thought this was an old talk, but no, its late 2016. Are they really going to keep saying its either all historical or it is a fraud? Except for non-discerning listeners like mentalgymnast, that must cause a great deal of cognitive dissonance to anyone who has even casually looked at the research.

I have to admit I was surprised it was a vapid as it turned out to be. I was expecting something more along the lines of a Givens talk or a Hardy presentation. I'm sincere in being puzzled over MG's decision to call it out here given it really was a cheerleading pep rally for believers and not meant to be a sincere engagement with the arguments around the Book of Mormon's authorship. I want to believe he had some sense there might be value in doing so but I don't see it and his reply to my questions wasn't illuminating, either. It reads like he intended it to be received as a testimony bearing experience rather than something intended to engage an audience that didn't already share his views.

[_mentalgymnast]

So, again, one has to wonder why you chose to share it.

Simply put, I was interested in the responses from 'the crowd' in regards to the five arguments against the Book of Mormon that Elder Callister reviewed in regards to the attempts of the critics to discredit the Book of Mormon.

Was I 'blown away' with the responses? Not really. But I thought it would be interesting to throw it out there.

Regards,
MG

[_SteelHead]

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

[_Lemmie]

So, again, one has to wonder why you chose to share it.

Simply put, I was interested in the responses from 'the crowd' in regards to the five arguments against the Book of Mormon that Elder Callister reviewed in regards to the attempts of the critics to discredit the Book of Mormon.

Was I 'blown away' with the responses? Not really. But I thought it would be interesting to throw it out there.

Really? And yet honorentheos already noted that logically that can't really be the case.

I'm pointing out a problem with your actions. The strawman arguments presented are being put to the flame in the thread because of what they are...

So, again, one has to wonder why you chose to share it. You clearly knew it was a pep rally. You clearly knew you invited non-fans to participate in it. It can't be that you foresaw this as creating interesting dialog or advancing the conversation regarding the Book of Mormon.

[_I have a question]

Intellectual Dishonesty
What is meant when one uses this term? Some possible meanings:
When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc.

http://wiki.c2.com/?IntellectualDishonesty

Seems an appropriate point in the thread to remind ourselves of this definition....

[_spotlight]

You're making stuff up.

Hardly. I said you were a dogmatist. You confessed as much when you stated that you are coming from a position of presumption that there is a god. If you cannot put that point up for potential falsification against the evidence, then you have confirmed my assessment.
And how is light and truth any different than understanding or the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria?
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. Happy special pleading.

Chap's observation rings loud and true here:

The idea that Smith, on his own or with associates, was the person who was responsible for the Book of Mormon, has only 'failed' in the sense that there are a small group of people, all devout Mormons, who have heard of it but refused to accept it, commonly on the grounds that their religious 'testimony' Trump's all argument. That is entirely their responsibility.

It is you have have made stuff up MG. You call it your testimony. An individual cannot know by his own experience that something is true or not because you are limited to your own experience and cannot weigh the experiences of others that are different from your own. I gave an example of this problem to moinmoin. If two TBMs are stricken with the same cancer which has a 50% recovery rate and both receive priesthood blessings and one recovers while the other dies we only hear about the faith promoting experience of the one that lives and the experience of the survivor means nothing. His testimony means nothing because he cannot incorporate the experience of the other.

[_huckelberry]

A response, mentalgymnist wants, I am trying to condense as we already have a bunch of words.

I have heard this argument many times. First exaggerate how stupid Joseph was. Second exaggerate the genius of the Book of Mormon. Notice that the book was not a copy of the View of the Hebrews, then insist Joseph did not read all of the books which have been suggested as possible source material for the book. It is clear Joseph was not schizophrenic.

As though Joseph was incapable of inventing stories,

As though it is not likely Joseph spent years developing stories.

As though his mom knew everything he read.

As though Joseph never attended those weekly meetings people had those days when educated individuals discoursed on the Bible and Bible related information in things called sermons.

As though there are no mental illness which allow a person to function and perhaps become adept at manipulating people.


As though the fact that I do not know the connections for any possible coauthors means there couldn't be any.

[_Chap]

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?

Thanks, Jersey Girl.

There is no doubt that Smith announced a revelation bidding him to send people to Canada to sell the copyright, and that a group went there for that purpose.

Even amongst well-informed and committed apologists, the only discussion is whether the mission was seen as a failure, and Whitmer was right in recalling that Smith later said the revelation was not from God.

See:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... _copyright

Question: Are there any eyewitness accounts of the events that resulted in the trip to Canada to sell the Book of Mormon copyright?

Joseph Smith decided this could be an opportunity to relieve some of the financial pressure associated with publishing the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith had been told there were people in Canada willing to buy the copyrights to useful books. Due to the dire financial position of the Church, he decided this could be an opportunity to relieve some of the financial pressure associated with publishing the Book of Mormon. Four men went to Canada.

Joseph Smith received a revelation directing them to go to Kingston, Canada, with some conditions placed upon their success

Before leaving, Joseph Smith received a revelation directing them to go to Kingston, Canada, with some conditions placed upon their success.

..it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowderey Joseph Knight Hyram Pagee & Josiah Stowel shall do my work in this thing yea even in securing the Copyright & they shall do it with an eye single to my Glory that it may be the means of bringing souls unto me Salvation through mine only Be{t\gotten} Behold I am God I have spoken it & it is expedient in me Wherefor I say unto you that ye shall go to Kingston seeking me continually through mine only Be{t\gotten} & if ye do this ye shall have my spirit to go with you & ye shall have an addition of all things which is expedient in me. amen & I grant unto my servent a privelige that he may sell a copyright through you speaking after the manner of men for the four Provinces if the People harden not their hearts against the enticeings of my spirit & my word for Behold it lieth in themselves to their condemnation &{◊\or} th{er\eir} salvation.

It's clear that zerinus is ignorant on this subject. Some might say that ignorance is not, in itself, a moral fault. But when faced with the evidence of his ignorance, he did not say 'sorry, my bad', but instead attempted to suggest that there was doubt about Smith's attempt to sell the copyright, when in fact there was no doubt at all that he made that attempt, and that he did so as the result (he said) of a direct instruction from God in the form of a revelation, of which we have the written record today. Zerinus's statement was simply untrue.

That, to me, shows the corrupting effects of an irrational commitment to defending a belief system at all costs. The habit of doing that against all the odds, in the face of both logic and evidence, has made zerinus into a liar.

[_Grudunza]

This part of the Book of Mormon proves its truth to me...

"And behold it came to pass, in these latter days, that an evil spirit arose on the face of the earth, and greatly troubled the sons of men.

And this spirit seized upon, and spread amongst the people who dwell in the land of Zarahemla.

Now, in this people the fear of the Lord had not been for many generations, and they had become a corrupt and perverse people; and their chief priests, and the nobles of the land, and the learned men thereof, had become wicked in the imaginations of their hearts."

Oh wait, that's not the Book of Mormon... It's the first three verses of the First Book of Napoleon, published in 1809. (Change "Zarahemla" to "Gaul.") Surely that must have been given of God, though, with its beautiful and meaningful language.

Not only is the Book of Mormon not unique for all-time, it isn't even that unique for its own time. An audacious and even somewhat impressive work, sure. But essentially a fan-fiction remix with some original ideas here and there. Also many screwy ideas.

I'd suggest the OP (and Ted Callister) read LDS GA BH Roberts' Studies of the Book of Mormon, which back in the 1920's figured out a lot of the huge problems with the book. Well, so did Twain and others decades earlier, but this was an acknowledgment from within. Apologists will say that BH was playing Devil's advocate and remained in the church, but reading that book it becomes clear how increasingly dismissive he gets towards the Book of Mormon and the idea that Joseph Smith couldn't have written it.

[Guest]

So, again, one has to wonder why you chose to share it.

Simply put, I was interested in the responses from 'the crowd' in regards to the five arguments against the Book of Mormon that Elder Callister reviewed in regards to the attempts of the critics to discredit the Book of Mormon.

Was I 'blown away' with the responses? Not really. But I thought it would be interesting to throw it out there.

Regards,
MG

Hmmm. You're puzzling me here, MG. In the past you've made it clear you are a balanced, informed thinker who studied the issues around the Church and it's history, is knowledgeable of the various sides of the issues, and even understanding to extent of why people don't believe while you've found a place within belief that is right for you.

But the article you shared is dismissively creating caricatured categories composed of strawmen arguments that it brushes off in order to basically cheerlead for the Book of Mormon.

If you are who you claim to be, you wouldn’t have shared the link out of curiosity for how informed critics of the Book of Mormon would respond to it. You, yourself, should have been dismissive of its value outside of cheerleading as an informed but faithful good faith participant in discussions here at MDB.

This doesn’t paint a good picture, MG. Either you seriously were impressed by the talk and felt it was compelling. And in that case I guess I could see someone who is very naïve of the issues wanting to see how critics responded. But then, your reaction to the point they are strawmen arguments and fail to achieve correspondence with actual critical views and evidence is to say you’re less than impressed? Impressed by the OP but not anticipating the strawmen would be brushed off for what they are makes sense in this regard but not in relation to your claims about your own experience and critical thought.

So, the other option is that you got what you expected to get. 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?