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

[Starfish]

Point taken, Katzpur. Everyone back to topic!

Summary: Still haven't seen a credible answer to the OP.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Starfish

Summary: Still haven't seen a credible answer to the OP.

Define credible.
because the way the word is being used here, it is synonymous with "an answer i can accept as possible."

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Define credible.
because the way the word is being used here, it is synonymous with "an answer i can accept as possible."

Well, a possibility that doesn't have problems.

Examples:
He was brilliant? No matter how brilliant--how could he come up with things that the world didn't know about at the time? He was too young and undereducated. He didn't have the resources. Plus to have done it in under 90 days? Witnesses attest to the time he spent. And to be brilliant and to not know where Jesus was born?

He had help? From whom? His family--poor farmers who simply didn't have the time. They were trying to keep food on the table. His wife? Friends? Who had the resources? His closest friends from the time he was translating, abandoned him. But they never changed their testimony concerning the gold plates and the translation.

The devil made him do it? The mere contents of the book blow this theory away. The entire message of the BoM is to bring us to Christ. It's about rejecting the devil, and obedience to Biblical principles. It's a witness of the divinity of Christ. Why would Satan promote this?

In over 480 posts, this is what we have.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Starfish

In over 480 posts, this is what we have.

I agree.
We have you not accepting anything other than that with which you already believe as being the only possible explanation.

Fact is that all of them have problems and all of them are just as credible as the one explanation you cling to.

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

I agree.
We have you not accepting anything other than that with which you already believe as being the only possible explanation.

Fact is that all of them have problems and all of them are just as credible as the one explanation you cling to.

Yes, I agree that the LDS explanation is incredible and hard to believe. But what I was asking for is a BETTER answer. One that makes sense. Afterall we have the book and it has changed millions of lives. It came from somewhere. Someone wrote it. Who? How? Many would LOVE to discredit it. Why haven't they been able to?

[DeepShadow]

So, Starfish, I guess what you are looking for is an answer that is not just equally credible to the LDS explanation, but more so? An explanation that doesn't require suspension of disbelief?

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

So, Starfish, I guess what you are looking for is an answer that is not just equally credible to the LDS explanation, but more so? An explanation that doesn't require suspension of disbelief?

An explanation that cannot be easily debunked. If they don't believe the LDS explanation, then give a better one. But that explanation must stand up under scrutiny.

[Red Pill]

Originally Posted by Starfish

What about Peter and Paul?


This is what a prophet must do to be a prophet? You want signs? Jesus didn't take well to sign-seekers.

"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it . . ." Matt. 12:39

Peter and Paul were apostles, not prophets. They proclaimed Christs message. They did not say they were the sole mouth piece of God on the earth. As a matter of fact there were 2 of them during the same time period proclaiming different messages. They didn't even get along with each other very well, hence the division of missions.

You said the LDS prophet was not different. I demonstrated difference.

A prophet should actually be prophetic. Waiting until society forces change, such as the change abolishing polygamy to gain statehood,and giving blacks and the priesthood to gain public approval are not prophetic actions.

Christ spoke for God when he taught loving each other, not an eye for an eye. Jonah was prophetic to the people of Nineveh. Moses was prophetic to the Pharaoh. They didn't wait for the circumstances to force change, they said what would happen with out change, and that is what happened. That is, if you believe the Bible.

Christ healed people and fed thousands. He said He did it to show He came with power. He blessed his followers by feeding them, healing them, curing lameness, blindness and providing wine (not grape juice) for wedding guests. Were his followers evil? They watched for his miracles or "signs".

BTW, I am not an evil generation. I am a woman with her head out of the sand. I take my ability to think and reason seriously as a gift from God. I don't ignore that gift by following some guys who don't even know I exist and can not possibly know what God has in mind for me. God knows that, and God lets me know when I am on the wrong path.

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by Red Pill

Peter and Paul were apostles, not prophets. They proclaimed Christs message. They did not say they were the sole mouth piece of God on the earth. As a matter of fact there were 2 of them during the same time period proclaiming different messages. They didn't even get along with each other very well, hence the division of missions.

You said the LDS prophet was not different. I demonstrated difference.

A prophet should actually be prophetic. Waiting until society forces change, such as the change abolishing polygamy to gain statehood,and giving blacks and the priesthood to gain public approval are not prophetic actions.

Christ spoke for God when he taught loving each other, not an eye for an eye. Jonah was prophetic to the people of Nineveh. Moses was prophetic to the Pharaoh. They didn't wait for the circumstances to force change, they said what would happen with out change, and that is what happened. That is, if you believe the Bible.

Christ healed people and fed thousands. He said He did it to show He came with power. He blessed his followers by feeding them, healing them, curing lameness, blindness and providing wine (not grape juice) for wedding guests. Were his followers evil? They watched for his miracles or "signs".

BTW, I am not an evil generation. I am a woman with her head out of the sand. I take my ability to think and reason seriously as a gift from God. I don't ignore that gift by following some guys who don't even know I exist and can not possibly know what God has in mind for me. God knows that, and God lets me know when I am on the wrong path.

I apologize for implying you are an evil generation. I cannot find where Peter and Paul were specifically called prophets. I do know there have been more than one prophet at a time, at times, probably because travel and communication was so limited. There are some references to prophets after Christ, but they are vague. One example is in Ephesians.
"For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when you read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ). Which in other ages was not made know unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;" Chapt. 3:1-5.

Also in Ephesians: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." 4:11-13

I don't expect this to change your mind and that's okay. It's off-topic to this thread anyway, so I'll end with that.