• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

fire

Member
It was impossible for Joseph to have come up with it out of his head.

It wasn't impossible since the evidence supports that he did come up with it. He was a great story teller from a very early age, if you research this you find that it is true. I have heard this challenge my whole life from the church leadership, and no one ever challenges the leaders which spew this stuff, so everyone just falls in line and never questions the validity of what is taught, "when the brethren have spoken all the thinking has been done". How handy for the brethren!
 

Fish-Hunter

Rejoice in the Lord!
It wasn't impossible since the evidence supports that he did come up with it. He was a great story teller from a very early age, if you research this you find that it is true. I have heard this challenge my whole life from the church leadership, and no one ever challenges the leaders which spew this stuff, so everyone just falls in line and never questions the validity of what is taught, "when the brethren have spoken all the thinking has been done". How handy for the brethren!

Good morning fire,

I'm trying to understand your posting from your perspective. Are you currently an LDS Christian? Or, are you an ex-LDS Christian converting to the historic Christian Faith?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
It wasn't impossible since the evidence supports that he did come up with it. He was a great story teller from a very early age, if you research this you find that it is true. I have heard this challenge my whole life from the church leadership, and no one ever challenges the leaders which spew this stuff, so everyone just falls in line and never questions the validity of what is taught, "when the brethren have spoken all the thinking has been done". How handy for the brethren!
You clearly haven't got a clue. I can't believe you managed to dig up that silly quote. I haven't heard that insult for years. I guess it's still floating around on a few anti-Mormon websites. :rolleyes:
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Good morning fire,

I'm trying to understand your posting from your perspective. Are you currently an LDS Christian? Or, are you an ex-LDS Christian converting to the historic Christian Faith?
I can answer that one for you, fishguy. He's a "real Christian" like you! I can tell because his post was so "Christian." :rolleyes:
 

fire

Member
Good morning fire,

I'm trying to understand your posting from your perspective. Are you currently an LDS Christian? Or, are you an ex-LDS Christian converting to the historic Christian Faith?

Good question! I am not sure what I would be classified as. I was a devout convert Mormon for over 30yrs. I believe in there being a God. I read the Bible with the same desire to find the truth as I did the LDS scriptures, which is why I am no longer LDS. There is a lot of stuff in the bible which I thought was true when I was younger, but now I think a lot of it is just the ramblings of self-righteous people who claim to have a direct line the God. Again, how handy for those people!
So far, I find no problems with the teachings and person of Jesus Christ.
So, What am I? :shrug:
 

fire

Member
You clearly haven't got a clue. I can't believe you managed to dig up that silly quote. I haven't heard that insult for years. I guess it's still floating around on a few anti-Mormon websites. :rolleyes:

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?
I don't regret my years in the church, it was fun, and I enjoyed the people, but I am searching for truth.
 

ayani

member
i actually had a conversation with two LDS young men this morning. we walked along, i shared my testimony with them, we talked about faith, Christ, and Christianity for a while. very nice young men.

i did mention one thing i really like about Christ- His life was His message. He did not come with a book to be copyrighted and published and distributed on printing presses, but with His living example of prayer, poverty, compassion, and a deep and marvelous love for God and for His brothers and sisters that transcended love of self.

Muhammad also came bearing a book, asking it to be recited, memorized, learnt, etc. Jesus, for me, is the Living Text- He gave us God's words, and asked us to be like Him, to follow Him, and if we loved Him, to love those among us who are poor and suffering, and care for them in His memory. these young men told me that God had sent another prophet to restore the truth- that they also take him on faith and trust.

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.
 

fire

Member
i actually had a conversation with two LDS young men this morning. we walked along, i shared my testimony with them, we talked about faith, Christ, and Christianity for a while. very nice young men.

i did mention one thing i really like about Christ- His life was His message. He did not come with a book to be copyrighted and published and distributed on printing presses, but with His living example of prayer, poverty, compassion, and a deep and marvelous love for God and for His brothers and sisters that transcended love of self.

If it was really important for there to be a "book", wouldn't Christ have made one? On-the-other-hand, since he didn't make one up, it should be clear; books can be used as a resource, but think for yourself.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
i did mention one thing i really like about Christ- His life was His message. He did not come with a book to be copyrighted and published and distributed on printing presses, but with His living example of prayer, poverty, compassion, and a deep and marvelous love for God and for His brothers and sisters that transcended love of self.
Funny how people want to dis the BoM over a copyright.
Yet say NOTHING about the copyrights that so many Bible are under...
The Holy Bible, 21st Century King James Version® (KJ21®) Copyright ©1994 by Deuel Enterprises, Inc., Gary, SD 57237. All rights reserved.

The "Amplified" trademark is registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by The Lockman Foundation. Use of this trademark requires the permission of The Lockman Foundation.

Scriptures marked as "(CEV)" are taken from the Contemporary English Version Copyright © 1995 by American Bible Society. Used by permission.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.

"Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission."

The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

"Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved."

HOLY BIBLE, TODAY'S NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® TNIV®
Copyright © 2001, 2005 by International Bible Society®.
All rights reserved worldwide.

BibleGateway.com - Over 50 online Bibles in 35 languages, in text and audio format.
Even the KJV had a copyright:
The K.J.V. Bible IS... a COPYRIGHTED Translation! @ Pilgrim
 

ayani

member
Funny how people want to dis the BoM over a copyright.
Yet say NOTHING about the copyrights that so many Bible are under...

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
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
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
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
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? :rolleyes: 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

Not your average Mormon
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

Member
You were a member of the Church for 30 years and thought that was a statement by a prophet? :rolleyes: 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

Not your average Mormon
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

Well-Known Member
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?
 

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
i do not understand the question.

I'm just saying while certain groups think and do hold the copyrights to something like the Bible, I find it rather questionable seeings that they copied it as well. I'm aware that they have a legal precedent on the way they present their version of Scripture, but to legally pursue such a case would be disturbing.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
This was after you read the book, right? I'm curious... Did God also tell you what in the book was false?

You're a nice person, Muffled, but a lot of what you just wrote shows nothing more than a very superficial understanding of the creation of the Book of Mormon. For instance, word-print analyses done by non-LDS scholars have proven that the Book of Mormon was not written by one or even several nineteenth-century authors. I really don't want to get into an argument with you over this, but you need to do a lot more research before you say a whole lot more.

You are correct.

Yes. The passage on baptism is incorrect theology and God pointed that out. The fact that God said it was written by a contemporary of J. Smith means that all the places and names and tribes are fictional. Other than that it reads as a fairly decent commentary on the Bible.

That is what I am here for, to learn more. However I haven't found Mormons to be very forthcoming on this subjest.

I am willing to look at a sample of what they say. I take a jaundiced view of such things because scholars have come up with outlandish statements about the Bible, such as Isaiah having two authors.

I don't want to argue about it either since there isn't much point. However you might be able to motivate me to look at resources that you know about. As far as I am concerned the book of Mormon stands as a good commentary on the Bible and the only place you can get into trouble with God is on the doctrine of baptism. I am reminded of "The Greatest Story Ever Told," (a work of fiction) which goes through the story of the life of Jesus speculating on a lot of things the Bible doesn't talk about. The error in it is the common misconception that Mary Magdalene was a prostitiute. There is never any such statement in the Bible. It is totally speculation.
 
Top