Please Explain how Joseph Smith could have possibly authored the Book of Mormon.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

The thinking is that Christ's legacy was preserved in an oral tradition until someone finally wrote it down somewhere around then. I find it interesting that few Christians know this.

We know this! ... the oral Gospel preserved by the Apostles and their successors precede the written Gospel.... non-Catholics have to turn a blind eye to this or concede the early church had structure and communion (hmmm sounds like a church) before the NT was close to completion.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Scott1

We know this! ... the oral Gospel preserved by the Apostles and their successors precede the written Gospel.... non-Catholics have to turn a blind eye to this or concede the early church had structure and communion (hmmm sounds like a church) before the NT was close to completion.

LDS doctrine teaches that the early church had structure and that Christ set the pattern as to how he wanted it set up (namely Apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists and so forth.) with Apostles as the governing body of the church.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

LDS doctrine teaches that the early church had structure and that Christ set the pattern as to how he wanted it set up (namely Apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists and so forth.) with Apostles as the governing body of the church.

Did Christ's "pattern" fall completely to shambles the moment the last Apostle died... or did it take a week or two?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

How can I? None exists.

Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

It seems a fairly logical suggestion to me, given Lucy Mack Smith's accounts of Joseph Smith Jr. recounting tales of the Nephites as a child...

What on earth? Seriously, I don't know what you're getting at here.

This would also explain why none of the men ever renounced their belief in the BoM, because to do so would expose themselves alongside Smith.

That hardly seems likely. If you disliked Joseph as much as some of these men did at various points in their life, it would have been a small price to pay to bring him down.

What other logical conclusion could you expect a non-believer to come to?

I guess that's as good as any I've heard.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Did Christ's "pattern" fall completely to shambles the moment the last Apostle died... or did it take a week or two?

considering the Roman Catholic church was organized by a Bishop named Ignatius of Antioch int he early 100's i would say it took a few years.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

considering the Roman Catholic church was organized by a Bishop named Ignatius of Antioch int he early 100's i would say it took a few years.

Please... for the last time.... Ignatius was the first person recognized as using the word "Catholic" in relation to the Church.... he did not organize the Church.... the church was founded at Pentecost.

Please... google is your friend... even Wiki.... PLEASE!

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Starfish

To write off the BoM as a miracle of Satan, or some evil spirit, is ridiculous. Why would anyone evil want a book that moves one towards Christ. Anyone relying on this explanation has not read the book thoroughly.

I agree that this is ONE POSSIBLE reason:

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Perhaps the lying spirit knew that the best way for its lies to remain undetected would be to imitate an appreciation of the words of God whilst adding in subtle but important additions that would spread evil. In fact, the best way to generate such an impression would be to trick a human into believing that it were God/JC and then feeding its message through that human's genuine feeling of loving devotion. The perfect mask.

Originally Posted by Starfish

Others have done it? I still haven't heard of a comparable example. And the challenge to duplicate it is still out there. No one has.

I presented two.
However, with your Kent Hovind approach it can never happen.

Originally Posted by Starfish

Again, if Joseph made the book up--then why? What did he have to gain by making up the BoM? He didn't need it to start a religion. Many religions begin without a new book of scripture. If anything, he could have simply written the Doctrine and Covenants, containing his own revelations. The Book of Mormon would have been an expensive waste of time. Even today, the Church sells copies at cost, never profiting from the sales.

Why what?
Why did Joseph write it or why did the evil spirit (if that is the case) write it?

Originally Posted by Autodidact

How do you tell who's acting, Satan or God?

One has to have faith.
There is no way to tell other than gut feeling or just belief that it was from god.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

The thing is, Starfish, if we could have a totally objective debate on this subject it would be one thing. That, unfortunately, is impossible. People who don't believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture will simply ignore any and all "evidence" we could possibly provide. They will either get their responses from anti-Mormon websites, or else they will say something completely irrational such as, "Well, anybody could write a chapter-long chiasmus. That doesn't prove anything." It's just so frustrating being able to see what we see and yet be unable to get past the biases people have. If you don't know what I mean, believe me, you soon will.

You can't have a totally object debate simply because theists who disagree with the LDS will not accept that your beliefs/faith/etc. is as valid as their beliefs/faith/etc.

Also one has the problem of showing which is right.
For with out proving the right, it is impossible to prove the wrong.
So those who try to prove one or the other wrong are doing nothing more than pointing out the differences in the two.

Since both sides of the debate are on the exact same unproven foundation...


Then we have the non-theists...
Non-theists are going to want something other than the emotional responses as have thus been presented in this thread.
They will want some sort of empirical evidence.
Something that does not end up with statements like:

"You have to already believe to understand"
"you have to be guided by the spirit"

The reason being that these are merely cop outs to the non-theist.
Any statement that says or implies that one has to already believe to believe, does not help the theists argument and in most cases (based upon my experiences and observations) tells the non-theist that you are not willing to look outside your own box.

Then we have those like fish-hunter, who present their opinion and attempt to back it up with verses that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Now before anyone starts crying/whining/etc. there are always exceptions.