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

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by ayani

this is true, M. i don't agree with that, either. God's Word should not be owned and "sealed" in this way, imo. a translation or publication should be for the honour of God, not the interests of men.

i'm reminded of the disciples coming to Christ, letting Him know that there were others driving out evil spirits in His name, but who were not themselves disciples, and Jesus didn't take issue with it.

Mark 9:38-41

Might I suggest that you hold out on any such opinion of copyrights until after you have a good understanding of the way the copyright laws work and what all they are for?

The most bizarre reason for rejecting the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, or the New King James Version is that these — and apparently all other major versions since 1881 — were copyrighted. The argument is that the publishers, by copyrighting their new Bibles, insure themselves a hefty royalty from every copy sold, and in fact made the new translations with the sinister motive of making a profit on the gullibility of religious people who buy every new Bible that comes along. The KJV, in contrast, is characterized as being far superior to any other version because it is "the only Bible published without a copyright!" as one recent publication stated. God just won't use a copyrighted Bible, some insist.

That there may be valid reasons for copyrighting new translations (e.g., to recover the expense of translation and typesetting, which can run into the millions of dollars, or to prevent corruption of the text in pirated editions) is rarely considered.
The K.J.V. Bible IS... a COPYRIGHTED Translation! @ Pilgrim

[DeepShadow]

Yes, I shudder to think what might have happened to the Book of Mormon if it wasn't copyrighted.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by fire

I didn't dig any part of what I said from the internet. I dug it out of my memory of many years in the Church. Are you calling quotes from your prophets, silly?

You were a member of the Church for 30 years and thought that was a statement by a prophet? I'm speechless. That was in an old ward teachers message from the 1950's which "the brethren" never even approved and subsequently made a statement against. In all your years as a Mormon, you apparently never learned what constitutes doctrine and what constitutes hearsay. That's a shame.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by ayani

of course, they're Latter-day Saints, so they would trust in Joseph Smith, and trust that God and Christ appeared to a 14-year-old boy. but for me, Christ is enough. i don't wish to disprove or rip apart the BoM- but i urged the LDS boys to focus on Christ, whom we share in common, and who really, if one is a Christian, taught us all we need to know, and simply asked us to follow Him- to love God with everything we have, and love our neighbors as ourselves, as He did.

Do you believe in the words of the ancient prophets and in Christ's Apostles? Do you believe that Jesus Christ built His Church on a foundation of prophets an apostles? Why would you think that His Church wouldn't need them today? I'm afraid I don't understand that reasoning.

[fire]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

You were a member of the Church for 30 years and thought that was a statement by a prophet? I'm speechless. That was in an old ward teachers message from the 1950's which "the brethren" never even approved and subsequently made a statement against. In all your years as a Mormon, you apparently never learned what constitutes doctrine and what constitutes hearsay. That's a shame.

I guess it's all hearsay if it doesn't agree with the current trend, evidence or science.
Is it now considered hearsay to say the prophets said the American Indians were decedents of the Jews, since we now know they were not? Is it hearsay to say the Pearl of great price was definitely not interpreted from the papyrus Joseph said it was? Is it hearsay to say women were ordained with the priesthood by Joseph Smith?
Is it hearsay to teach that anyone can have their "calling and election made sure" and yet no general authority has ever made that claim?
Is it hearsay to study for the truth using the church history books, Bible, and personal prayer; if you discover Joseph Smith was not a true prophet?
I have no animosity for anyone in the LDS church who believes it to be true, because I was one of them too. I too thought I was following inspired teachings from the prophets. Oh well, I guess that's life. It is confusing isn't it. On-the-other-hand, if people never question anything taught to them, then nothing is confusing, is it!

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by fire

I guess it's all hearsay if it doesn't agree with the current trend, evidence or science.

It's hearsay if it can't be found in the Standard Works.

Is it now considered hearsay to say the prophets said the American Indians were decedents of the Jews, since we now know they were not?

We don't know for sure what the ancestory of the American Indians is. DNA evidence hasn't proven anything conclusively yet; it's still too new of a science and there are simply too many factors to declare the case closed at this point. I don't know of many Latter-day Saints today who would claim that all of the American Indians are of Israelite ancestory, but most of us don't discount the possibility that some may be.

Is it hearsay to say the Pearl of great price was definitely not interpreted from the papyrus Joseph said it was?

Haven't you stated your question backwards? The way you've put it doesn't make sense.

Is it hearsay to say women were ordained with the priesthood by Joseph Smith?

This is not a question about doctrine. It's a question about Church history. I'd say it's hearsay unless there's proof. Do you have proof?

Is it hearsay to teach that anyone can have their "calling and election made sure" and yet no general authority has ever made that claim?

I've never heard that statement, but if it's not in one of the Standard Works, yes, it's hearsay.

Is it hearsay to study for the truth using the church history books, Bible, and personal prayer; if you discover Joseph Smith was not a true prophet?

Your question didn't make sense, sorry. I think you're asking me what a person should conclude if, once he has read the Standard Works and prayed to God for wisdom, the answer is that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet. If that's what you're asking, I'd say that it's time for you to find something you can believe in that will bring you closer to God. I guess I just don't know what hearsay has to do with it at all.

I have no animosity for anyone in the LDS church who believes it to be true, because I was one of them too. I too thought I was following inspired teachings from the prophets. Oh well, I guess that's life. It is confusing isn't it. On-the-other-hand, if people never question anything taught to them, then nothing is confusing, is it!

Yes, it is confusing. I was taught to question from an early age. In my family, doubting was more or less expected to be a part of the learning process. My dad, in particular, was a strong member of the Church, but he taught me not to accept everything I was ever taught in Church as Church doctrine. I remember, for example, coming home from Sunday School once and telling my dad that our teacher said that if a person believes in evolution, he believes that a woman could give birth to a monkey. I'll never forget the look on my dad's face when I said that. Another time, my Seminary teacher said something really off the wall, and again I watched my dad roll his eyes when I told him. I learned for myself that the Church was true. It wasn't that I just accepted everything I was told, hook, line and sinker. If you've come to the opposite conclusion, about all I can say is that I hope you've found something that works for you and that you will be happy with your new faith. I would never presume to tell someone that my spiritual experiences are more valid than his.

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Might I suggest that you hold out on any such opinion of copyrights until after you have a good understanding of the way the copyright laws work and what all they are for?

The most bizarre reason for rejecting the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, or the New King James Version is that these — and apparently all other major versions since 1881 — were copyrighted. The argument is that the publishers, by copyrighting their new Bibles, insure themselves a hefty royalty from every copy sold, and in fact made the new translations with the sinister motive of making a profit on the gullibility of religious people who buy every new Bible that comes along. The KJV, in contrast, is characterized as being far superior to any other version because it is "the only Bible published without a copyright!" as one recent publication stated. God just won't use a copyrighted Bible, some insist.

That there may be valid reasons for copyrighting new translations (e.g., to recover the expense of translation and typesetting, which can run into the millions of dollars, or to prevent corruption of the text in pirated editions) is rarely considered.
The K.J.V. Bible IS... a COPYRIGHTED Translation! @ Pilgrim

What is "the statutes of limitation" on history or any other 2000 year old story?

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

What is "the statutes of limitation" on history or any other 2000 year old story?

i do not understand the question.