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

[Katzpur]

Yes. The passage on baptism is incorrect theology and God pointed that out.

Could you be more specific? Baptism is mentioned in numerous places in the Book of Mormon, so I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

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.

Did God tell you why this person wrote the book, or why Joseph Smith was willing to be persecuted for his entire life, eventually being murdered at the hands of a mob of his enemies rather than admit to this fraud?

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

Well, it's hard to do with all the fighting going on. Any time you'd like a one-on-one discussion or debate or whatever, you can be sure that I will be as forthcoming as I know how to be. It's just that when at least half of the posts we respond to are beligerent, it kind of wears on you. It's frustrating to spend a lot of time on an answer, only to get a rude response in return.

 

[ayani]

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.

well, Biblically, we are all called to be disciples of Christ. what causes me to pause and be wary is someone saying they have a new book or revelation apart from Christ's revelation, and apart from the Bible.

i'm not saying Christ doesn't need apostles and disciples- He has commanded us to make disciples of all nations. but there's a big difference between being a disciple and reflecting Christ, and claiming one's self to be a prophet with a new scripture. new, as in no one's seen it before.

 

[wednesday]

well, Biblically, we are all called to be disciples of Christ. what causes me to pause and be wary is someone saying they have a new book or revelation apart from Christ's revelation, and apart from the Bible.

i'm not saying Christ doesn't need apostles and disciples- He has commanded us to make disciples of all nations. but there's a big difference between being a disciple and reflecting Christ, and claiming one's self to be a prophet with a new scripture. new, as in no one's seen it before.

Well when Joseph SMith came out with this new book, a lot of people believed him, and a lot still do, so there must have been something he did to make people believe him. People simply do not just follow blindly, especially not multitudes of people.

Stereotypically, people i know and myself have always thought of the mormans as the crazy christains who ride round on bikes trying to convert, but they're no different to any other religion in any way other than age. The word of god is the word of god, regardless of when it was written. Since no evidence of god exists all people have is faith, and thats all that counts for some, just because a religion is older doesn't mean it is more holy, or better.

 

[Starfish]

Well when Joseph SMith came out with this new book, a lot of people believed him, and a lot still do, so there must have been something he did to make people believe him. People simply do not just follow blindly, especially not multitudes of people.

Stereotypically, people i know and myself have always thought of the mormans as the crazy christains who ride round on bikes trying to convert, but they're no different to any other religion in any way other than age. The word of god is the word of god, regardless of when it was written. Since no evidence of god exists all people have is faith, and thats all that counts for some, just because a religion is older doesn't mean it is more holy, or better.

You sound like a reasonable person.

 

[Katzpur]

well, Biblically, we are all called to be disciples of Christ.

You're not saying a disciple is the same thing as an Apostle, are you?

what causes me to pause and be wary is someone saying they have a new book or revelation apart from Christ's revelation, and apart from the Bible.

I would be a lot more wary of someone insisting that everything Christ ever taught could be found within the Bible, when the Bible clearly teaches that if everything He'd said and done had been written down, it would fill all the books in the world.

i'm not saying Christ doesn't need apostles and disciples- He has commanded us to make disciples of all nations. but there's a big difference between being a disciple and reflecting Christ, and claiming one's self to be a prophet with a new scripture. new, as in no one's seen it before.

I don't think you've thought this through very carefully. Why would Jesus have told the people He was going to send prophets and apostles if He didn't mean to follow through and do so? Why would God suddenly decide, after thousands of years of speaking to His people through prophets that they could just read the book and make sense of it the best they could?

By the way, when did you become a Christian, ayani?

 

[ayani]

Katzpur ~ i'm not saying He wouldn't, no. but personally, as a matter of my faith, i'd take Christ's word, and i find the Gospel accounts to be sufficient. LDS believe that Christ spoke to Joseph Smith, and put their trust in him as a prophet, and in the BoM. i don't, but that's my conviction.

and i've been a Christian for nearly a month now.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

People simply do not just follow blindly, especially not multitudes of people.

Ever hear of Jonestown?

Jonestown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Apex]

Ever hear of Jonestown?

Jonestown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a slight difference between 918 people and millions of people.

 

[Sententia]

Ultimately, like all religions, mormonism is a matter of faith.

They may argue that its not faith but when they do so they reveal just how much faith it takes.

In honesty not accepting a god also takes faith and a lot of courage.

However not accepting a personal god and disregarding the tales of both the bible and BoM does not require any faith at all. Just common sense.

There may be a god... But I am quite certain its nothing like Joe describes and he was one crafty Joe. Nor anything like the bible describes either. Humans are just hell bent on ego and vanity and want to be important. Its their survival mechanism in overdrive. They want to outlast death. They want to be the ones smart enough to have believed. etc etc. We could rationalize this bs all day hehe.

Ultimately I think Joe spoke and people wrote stuff down... Was it the word of god... lol... sure... if you want it to be.... to me... no. Anyways my opinion.

 

[McBell]

ah yes, the "common sense" argument...

 

[Sententia]

ah yes, the "common sense" argument...

Heh... Elaborate then how a personal god argument is common sense. Ok... just sense... Tell me how it really is and what you know. Tell me its not your opinion but fact and I should be living my life according to HIS plan.

Go for it. Show me the error of my ways. Or back down and just goto your corner. You have faith and nothing more.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

This is going to be good...

 

[DeepShadow]

Heh... Elaborate then how a personal god argument is common sense. Ok... just sense... Tell me how it really is and what you know. Tell me its not your opinion but fact and I should be living my life according to HIS plan.

Not to support your WILDLY off topic tangent, but you've got a contradiction:

a) show you belief in God is (common) sense.
b) tell you that it's fact and you should be living according to His plan

The first is doable: God has spoken to me, personally, therefore belief in Him is, FOR ME, common sense. But after that it breaks down: my message from God is for me, not for you. Go get your own. I can't validate my message objectively to others, and I wouldn't do so if I could.

When you can empirically, objectively prove you love your wife/girlfriend/whoever, I'll try to prove to you that God spoke to me.

 

[McBell]

Heh... Elaborate then how a personal god argument is common sense. Ok... just sense... Tell me how it really is and what you know. Tell me its not your opinion but fact and I should be living my life according to HIS plan.

Go for it. Show me the error of my ways. Or back down and just goto your corner. You have faith and nothing more.

Nice assumptions you make whilst jumping to your conclusions.
Care to further make an arse of yourself?

 

[Sententia]

God has spoken to me, personally

Ahh. Does he have an accent? Anything like George Burns? I always wondered. Was it through a burning bush? Did he say anything about an ark? (Never can be too careful)

I will further clarify personal god though... a god personally concerned with us and our every day actions. A god who on whim could fix all the problems of the world or destroy it if he so desired. A god like YHWH or Ra.

Denying such a god is common sense to me.

 

[Sententia]

Nice assumptions you make whilst jumping to your conclusions.
Care to further make an arse of yourself?

I said...

However not accepting a personal god and disregarding the tales of both the bible and BoM does not require any faith at all. Just common sense

And you said "ahhh the common sense argument".... I specifically said in regards to a personal god and in disregarding the bible and BoM we would not need faith, just common sense.

There are no assumptions here mate. Elaborate then on how a personal god argument is common sense or how treating the BoM or Bible as factual accounts IS common sense.

 

[DeepShadow]

Ahh. Does he have an accent? Anything like George Burns? I always wondered. Was it through a burning bush? Did he say anything about an ark? (Never can be too careful)

I will further clarify personal god though... a god personally concerned with us and our every day actions. A god who on whim could fix all the problems of the world or destroy it if he so desired. A god like YHWH or Ra.

Denying such a god is common sense to me.

"No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[Sententia]

"No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Lol. You just said you know there is a god because he has spoken to you. The most powerful being you can conjure, god of all matter both seen and unseen and father of the universe has spoken directly to you.

And you come back with no true scotsman fallacy?

Sweet.

Ok, your contention is god exists because you guys have conversed but you cant prove to anyone else that you have conversed however you know it and believe it because you were there. You acknowledge a personal god can not be proven, not even by you who has actually talked to god.

Now heres the crux... For a theory to be useful it must be posed to explain or to attempt to explain something. Ie... evolution was posed as a theory to how humans and other complicted organisms can evolve from non organic origins.

For what purpose do you suppose a personal god theory is needed and to what event does it explain?

Next...

I stated that a a disbelief in a personal god is common sense. You refute this... ok

What is common sense?

common sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts

Ahh. So what perceptions and facts do you puport that would allow me to make a sound and prudent judgement that a personal god does indeed exist?

 

[Muffled]

Could you be more specific? Baptism is mentioned in numerous places in the Book of Mormon, so I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.[/color]

Did God tell you why this person wrote the book, or why Joseph Smith was willing to be persecuted for his entire life, eventually being murdered at the hands of a mob of his enemies rather than admit to this fraud?

Well, it's hard to do with all the fighting going on. Any time you'd like a one-on-one discussion or debate or whatever, you can be sure that I will be as forthcoming as I know how to be. It's just that when at least half of the posts we respond to are beligerent, it kind of wears on you. It's frustrating to spend a lot of time on an answer, only to get a rude response in return.

No I haven't read the book of Mormon lately. It was in the New Testament section (At least it appears to be divided that way to me) and stated that a person is saved by baptism. This is contrary to Biblical accounts and that argument is in Biblical Debates.

No. Would you like me to ask? I can't guarantee an answer because God sticks to His own agenda.

I would appreciate an attempt on your part. I don't want to be left with a misconception from the person I spoke with if you can clear it up. I think you always have to listen carefully to someone leaving a religion because they obviously are grinding an axe coming from animosity.

Sure we could talk privately but you never can tell when the information may be helpful to someone. I believe that nothing done for Christ is wasted no matter what the response.

 

[McBell]

I said...

However not accepting a personal god and disregarding the tales of both the bible and BoM does not require any faith at all. Just common sense

And you said "ahhh the common sense argument".... I specifically said in regards to a personal god and in disregarding the bible and BoM we would not need faith, just common sense.

There are no assumptions here mate. Elaborate then on how a personal god argument is common sense or how treating the BoM or Bible as factual accounts IS common sense.

As DeepShadow already pointed out:

The first is doable: God has spoken to me, personally, therefore belief in Him is, FOR ME, common sense. But after that it breaks down: my message from God is for me, not for you. Go get your own. I can't validate my message objectively to others, and I wouldn't do so if I could.

When you can empirically, objectively prove you love your wife/girlfriend/whoever, I'll try to prove to you that God spoke to me.

Your assumption is that one need not have faith.
Faith is a given when proof cannot be offered FROM EITHER SIDE.

Your assumption is that "Common Sense" is an absolute.
When clearly it is subjective.

So my point stands:

You assume to much
​