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

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Scott1

It is amazing that a faith founded on the principle that every other Christian church is apostate feels the need to play the martyr.

I agree.
However if you are attempting to imply that Mormons are one of those groups then I strongly suggest you look on this very forum for the nonsense attacks on the LDS.
To make it easy look for threads started by Fish-hunter and uss_bigd

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

I agree.
However if you are attempting to imply that Mormons are one of those groups then I strongly suggest you look on this very forum for the nonsense attacks on the LDS.
To make it easy look for threads started by Fish-hunter and uss_bigd

True enough... and my LDS friends know I've done my share of defending them.... but my point was (and they know this) their faith is based upon our "apostasy", so I'm sure in some small way they expect to get a little "flak".

[cardero]

Originally Posted by Starfish

Some mentioned "lying spirit", you say evil spirit, so that is how I came up with the devil. I assumed blaming lying and evil spirits is similar to blaming Satan. But whatever.

How am I jumping? I am just asking for a reasonable explanation of how he could have written it, and so far it's:
1. "evil/lying spirits".
2. Other people have done it, so it's not impossible.

Both answers have major problems.

Starfish, why would God have Joseph Smith translate plates? Why didn't God just speak or dictate the contents of the plates or even inspire Joseph Smith with His own revelation rather than relying on past historical writings? Wouldn't there have been less of a chance of error if God spoke to Joseph Smith directly? Would the Book Of Mormon have been just as impressive without the ordeal of digging up plates, translating them and then returning them? The only reason I ask is because I didn't have to go through this ordeal to receive my revelation from GOD.

[Runt]

Originally Posted by cardero

Starfish, why would God have Joseph Smith translate plates? Why didn't God just speak or dictate the contents of the plates or even inspire Joseph Smith with His own revelation rather than relying on past historical writings? Wouldn't there have been less of a chance of error if God spoke to Joseph Smith directly? Would the Book Of Mormon have been just as impressive without the ordeal of digging up plates, translating them and then returning them? The only reason I ask is because I didn't have to go through this ordeal to receive my revelation from GOD.

Wouldn't it be easier if God just downloaded the Bible into everyone's head?

[trinity2359]

Originally Posted by Runt

Wouldn't it be easier if God just downloaded the Bible into everyone's head?

Complete with a reader's guide to elminate any confusion/debate over doctrine and practice - that would be perfect!

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

All I'm saying is that there is no real way for you to prove any one of these three options is better than the others:

1 - Joseph Smith was inspired of God

2- Joseph Smith was inspired by the Devil

3 - Joseph Smith got lucky

I don't believe any of those things.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by cardero

Starfish, why would God have Joseph Smith translate plates? Why didn't God just speak or dictate the contents of the plates or even inspire Joseph Smith with His own revelation rather than relying on past historical writings? Wouldn't there have been less of a chance of error if God spoke to Joseph Smith directly? Would the Book Of Mormon have been just as impressive without the ordeal of digging up plates, translating them and then returning them? The only reason I ask is because I didn't have to go through this ordeal to receive my revelation from GOD.

Actually, it's quite simple, He did in fact write revelations of his own which we now know as the Doctrine and Covenants.

also, you forget that we believe in continuing revelation to his servants the prophets. meanign every 6 months when we have general conference, those talks are inspired directly by the holy spirit. and in some cases new revelation is given that is relevant to our current economic or social situations. Like Pornography for instance, It is an addiction and a filthy Evil of this world but there is nothing in the Bible, BoM, or Doctrine and covenants on this particular subject. So there was a need for continuing revelation on the subject ebcause new things pop up every day that we didn't have before.

And Cardero, I'm sure you can recieve personal revelation for yourself and your family, just as everyone else on this planet can, according to the will of God. But i reject the notion that you recieve revelation for the planet as a whole because, i believe that role is filled currently by Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[madhatter85]

I feel about this as C. S. Lewis once said about the divinity of Christ: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: [that is,] ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to” (Mere Christianity, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960, pages 40–41).

I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is, or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all. But let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically.

This is my favorite part of a talk by Jeffrey R. Holland.