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

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Scott1

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!

If that were true why didn't it keep the same organization? Why the need to change it?

The highest office of the catholic church then was the office of "Bishop"

what happened to Apostle? when an apostle died they ordained a new one by the laying on of hands... It is clear in the Bible.

The entimology of the word Pope - it comes form PAPA which is a Latin abbreviation for a term meaning "Bishop of Bishops" or "Father of Fathers" it was created by a group of bishops as a way for them to create a "leadership" position.

Christ did not ordain Popes, he ordained Apostles. Why would he go through the trouble to organize the Apostles and the Seventy if he had no intention of maintaning the same organization?

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

If that were true why didn't it keep the same organization? Why the need to change it?

It changed?

The highest office of the catholic church then was the office of "Bishop"

Still is.

what happened to Apostle? when an apostle died they ordained a new one by the laying on of hands... It is clear in the Bible.

Clear? Opinions vary.

The entimology of the word Pope - it comes form PAPA which is a Latin abbreviation for a term meaning "Bishop of Bishops" or "Father of Fathers" it was created by a group of bishops as a way for them to create a "leadership" position.

Super... thanks.... I'm fairly certain I have read that before....

Christ did not ordain Popes, he ordained Apostles. Why would he go through the trouble to organize the Apostles and the Seventy if he had no intention of maintaning the same organization?

I dunno.

All this from a simple request of historical accuracy.... oh well.

Peace,
S

[cardero]

Starfish writes: Others have done it? I still haven't heard of a comparable example.

Are you seeking a comparable example?

Starfish writes: And the challenge to duplicate it is still out there. No one has.

Starfish, why would you find a (multi-lingual) deity who would require (yet another) paricular human subject and have this person dig up (and haul) golden plates, to decode (through a very unusual, unorthodox and extravagant process) a transcription of another book (that can only be based and interpreted through personal faith) impressive?

[cardero]

Maddhatter85 writes: Why such Vehemency? so vehement in fact that he was martyred by an angry mob? Satan could not afford for the truth to be known, otherwise he would lose everything he has been working so hard to achieve.

The persecution and/or martyring of a nominated and/or self-proclaimed prophet through devious means does not lend credibility to the prophet’s message or is a reliable measure of divinity to someone who declares inspiration from GOD (it is also an ineffective method to prove the existence of Satan). From my understanding, this is not a requirement of GOD and it often makes further prophesizing difficult for the prophet and makes it that much harder for anyone to reach him (or her) for further questioning and understanding.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

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

Joseph Smith Jr. recounted tales of the Nephites prior to finding the BoM according to his mother.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

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.

Harris followed several people claiming the leadership after Joseph Smith's death, he never attempted to leave the Church, so no reason.
Whitmer and Cowdery were discommunicated, but Whitmer founded his own Mormon Church, recanting his testimony would have made his Church null and void.
According to the Times and Seasons Cowdery did recant his testimony, but even if this is untrue the fact that he eventually sought out the Utah saints and was re-admitted suggests he never wanted to be apart from the Church, and public denial of his testimony would have made re-admittance an impossibility.

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

Joseph was in his twenties when he told those stories--hardly a "child." That was after his visit by the Angel Moroni but before he recieved the plates. Check the dates yourself.

No need, I trust you. I typed that post from memory, so I'm not surprised I got parts wrong. Still, as a non-believer and a person who doesn't ascribe any evidential validity to dreams or visions, the fact of Joseph's pre-BoM tales of the Nephites is telling.

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

None of these men had access to the kind of poetry we find in the Book of Mormon, such as the Arabic quellenlieder--they hadn't been discovered yet. Neither had the proper names they used.

Having no idea what an Arabic quellenlieder was/is I googled it, the only results I got were from Mormon or BoM-related websites. This suggests to me that the quellenlieder is extremely obscure and as such strikes me as most likely a product of Nibley's notorious parallelomania.

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

What about writing style? Statistical wordprint analysis has shown that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon all had a different writing style than Nephi, who had a different writing style than Alma. Are we to believe the wordprint analyses that conclude the book had at least fifteen authors? Were all of them Joseph's contemporaries, yet none of them among the usual suspects as authors of the book?

The problem with this is that Joseph claimed to have translated the BoM, God didn't dictate it. So, unless the language of the Nephites was KJV English and the translation process was actually transliteration, Joseph or his scribes would have had to rearrange and add to the translation to make it sensible to an English speaking audience. Therefore we would expect the BoM to resemble the writing style of the translaters - just grab a few copies of the Qur'an translated by different people to see what I mean.
The fact that we have 15 slightly different writing styles (according to BYU's "wordprint analysis") is thus more suggestive of role-playing, i.e. as with many of today's authors of fiction, they pretend to be a character, get in their head, and then write as that character. It's really not that difficult. Or even simpler would be to emulate the writing style of one of their favourite authors, or even books from the OT.

Originally Posted by Deepshadow

Let's be clear, the Mormon conclusion is not a matter of logic, and non-believers are more than entitled to assert equally non-logical conclusions...but if you insist your conclusion is logical, it must account for ALL the data.

As yet there is no explanation that does this, on either side.

Getting back to the purpose of my original post, the OP asked a question, I answered it according to the explanation I find most likely.
I didn't answer to Mormon-bash, when was the last time you saw me in a Mormon-related thread where I wasn't defending you? You'll have a hard time finding such a post because I only post to either ask a question, or when it's something like this, since I am interested in the historicity and formation of religions.

As far as this particular question goes I can see several possibilities;
a) Everything Joseph Smith said and did was true.
b) Satan inspired the writing of the BoM.
c) It's a case of automatic writing.
d) The religion and BoM is entirely man-made.

If I accepted "a" I would already be a Mormon.
I don't accept "b" because I don't believe in the existence of Satan.
I don't accept "c" because as a skeptic and materialist automatic writing seems as far fetched to me as "b".
This leaves me with "d", and while I may not be able to prove my opinion to be reality, I do see related evidence supporting it.

And no, I don't need to account for all the data, just enough to make the alternatives seem less likely than my explanation.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Scott1

It changed?

the RCC does not have Apostles or seventy as clearly organized by Christ himself
Matthew 10: he calls his 12 Apostles

1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

Luke10: he calls his seventy

1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

Acts 14: they ordained Elders

23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

It is clear the pattern that Christ himself is set in the New Testament.

Clear? Opinions vary.

sorry to burst your bubble but it's not an opinion, it's fact..
Acts 1: The Remaining 11 Pray to the Lord to find out who he has chosen to fill the empty seat of the 12 Apostles

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

It is stated that beginning with the Baptism of John that there should always be 12 Apostles.

I dunno.

I suggest you find out, because ignorance is not bliss.

All this from a simple request of historical accuracy.... oh well.

Peace,
S

I am being historically accurate, thanks.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

The problem with this is that Joseph claimed to have translated the BoM, God didn't dictate it. So, unless the language of the Nephites was KJV English and the translation process was actually transliteration, Joseph or his scribes would have had to rearrange and add to the translation to make it sensible to an English speaking audience. Therefore we would expect the BoM to resemble the writing style of the translaters - just grab a few copies of the Qur'an translated by different people to see what I mean.
The fact that we have 15 slightly different writing styles (according to BYU's "wordprint analysis") is thus more suggestive of role-playing, i.e. as with many of today's authors of fiction, they pretend to be a character, get in their head, and then write as that character. It's really not that difficult. Or even simpler would be to emulate the writing style of one of their favourite authors, or even books from the OT.

I don't know a whole lot (read: next to nothing) about word print analysis, but it seems like I have read that the word prints can often survive a translation. Also, the patterns that are looked for are very hard to fake, even if you are trying (which they'd have no reason to do, since word prints wouldn't be discovered for another hundred years or so) - so "getting into a character" likely wouldn't have much of an effect on the wordprint. Also, very little of the BoM is in 1st person anyway, so "getting into character" wouldn't play much of a role anyway.