Who wrote the Book of Mormon?

[rcwhiteh]

BJ Colbert:

When my husband was married to his first wife in a Mass. After they divorced he was not allowed communion. … Within a week they had absolved him of all sin and sent a priest to our home to tell him to say 30 hail marys and he was totally forgiven. Now, how did that happen after over 25 years of being told there was no hope? Can you explain?

Yes; it’s called an annullment, which means that a valid marriage did not exist. (It’s also not quite as simple as you make it sound.) If the marriage was not valid, then annulling does not fall under the category of putting asunder what God has joined.
BJ Colbert:

Why is the Catholic church not set up as Jesus set up his church when he was on earth with a prophet and 12 apostles?

Christ was not a prophet; He is the Son of God. He established His Church with apostles who had all authority to ordain others; He also set one apostle, Peter, over the others as first among equals. We call them bishops and popes.

We’ve been doing things His way for close to two millennia.
BJ Colbert:

Why does the Catholic church have priests and nuns who are not allowed to marry and have children, when that is the most important part of life.

That is a custom of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and is not universal across all the ritual traditions of Catholicism. (Read more about other rites here .) It is a Biblical way for priests and nuns to focus their attentions on their service to God.

Where does Scripture say that marriage and parenthood are the most important parts of life, or is that merely your opinion?
BJ Colbert:

What scripture tells you to give up baptizing by emersion as Jesus taught, and baptize by sprinkling?

Romans baptize by pouring, just as John the Baptist did; Methodists sprinkle.
BJ Colbert:

What makes you believe so fervently that the Catholic church is the one and only true church?

Because Jesus told us that:

• Peter was the Rock upon which He would build His Church; and
• The gates of Hell would not prevail against it (i.e., it would not fail).

Joseph Smith didn’t need to “restore” the Church.
BJ Colbert:

I believe The Book of Mormon is true, because I have faith that it is, the same faith I have that … Joseph Smith … restored the Church of Jesus Christ in its original form upon the earth.

Some people think L. Ron Hubbard was the real deal, too. Faith is a wonderful thing; so is using your brain. Joseph Smith was a convicted con man; Hubbard was a bad science-fiction writer.
BJ Colbert:

In the days of ancient Israel and effective method of testing the claims of a professed prophet was prescribed. … Of the many predictions uttered by Joseph Smith and already fulfilled or awaiting the set time of their realization, a few citations will suffice.

No, a few will not suffice. To follow the test explicitly, you must evaluate all of Smith’s prophecies; if any one does not prove true, then he is a false prophet.

So many things in the Book of Mormon conflict with the Old and New Testament that it calls the entire LDS religion into question. Try working your way through the articles posted in the library of Catholic Answers; if you can offer a point-by-point refutation of the claims made in those articles without referring to the Book of Mormon as authoritative (because that is what is under examination here), we’ll listen to you. But I’ll say to you what I said to BYU-BOY: leave the “burning in the breast” garbage out of it. We are not dealing with strange feelings or irrationalisms here; we are proceeding from cold logic.

If you can’t do that, then stand back and let real Scripture scholars (Katholikos comes to mind) speak.

 

[Katholikos]

tkdnick:

There are a couple seller’s on ebay who are selling sealed (still wrapped in the plastic) copies of the original version. I purchased one and though it hasn’t come yet, it sure looks from the pictures to be a copy of the original. And it’s coming from a bookstore in Utah, which seems to me to make it even more credible.

thank you, thank you, thank you. I’ve got my ebay expert searching for it on my behalf. Much obliged. Jay

 

[Chris-WA]

BJ, I’ve read many of your posts and I truly believe you feel in your heart that what you believe is correct. But I have noticed that in a lot of your posts you make incorrect assumptions when posing questions. For example:
BJ Colbert:

Why is the Catholic church not set up as Jesus set up his church when he was on earth with a prophet and 12 apostles?

You’re assuming that Christ’s church was set up this way. It wasn’t. There was no prophet above the 12 Apostles. If so, who was he? Was there another person above Peter?
BJ Colbert:

Why does the Catholic church have priests and nuns who are not allowed to marry and have children, when that is the most important part of life?

Here you’re assuming that marrying and having children is the most important part of life. It isn’t. Look at the Apostle Paul. He wasn’t married. In his letters he encouraged others to lead a single life of celibacy dedicated to God. The Catholic Church holds the sacrament of marriage in the highest regard, and most of us are called to this vocation, but it also recognizes another calling for some like the Apostle Paul. Look at Christ. He wasn’t married either.
BJ Colbert:

What scripture tells you to give up baptizing by emersion as Jesus taught, and baptize by sprinkling?

You’re assuming that Jesus taught baptism explictly by immersion. When did he teach that?

BJ, I’ve been to LDS sunday school with my wife and I’ve heard the same assumptions taught that you just posted. But we must examine those assumptions if we are to get to the real truth. When we start from shaky assumptions we get to shaky conclusions. You can examine the Bible for yourself on each of the above points. Please let me know what you think.

 

[tkdnick]

Katholikos:

thank you, thank you, thank you. I’ve got my ebay expert searching for it on my behalf. Much obliged. Jay

No problem. I got mine from a seller with “eborn” in their name. If you go through them, I suggest the shipping insurance. I’m not saying they were dishonest, but I did not receive the original they said they sent, so they are sending another. Shipping insurance I will always use from now on to cover myself.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

rcwhiteh:

Yes; it’s called an annullment, which means that a valid marriage did not exist. (It’s also not quite as simple as you make it sound.) If the marriage was not valid, then annulling does not fall under the category of putting asunder what God has joined.

Christ was not a prophet; He is the Son of God. He established His Church with apostles who had all authority to ordain others; He also set one apostle, Peter, over the others as first among equals. We call them bishops and popes.

We’ve been doing things His way for close to two millennia.

That is a custom of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and is not universal across all the ritual traditions of Catholicism. (Read more about other rites here .) It is a Biblical way for priests and nuns to focus their attentions on their service to God.

Where does Scripture say that marriage and parenthood are the most important parts of life, or is that merely your opinion?

Romans baptize by pouring, just as John the Baptist did; Methodists sprinkle.

Because Jesus told us that:

• Peter was the Rock upon which He would build His Church; and
• The gates of Hell would not prevail against it (i.e., it would not fail).

Joseph Smith didn’t need to “restore” the Church.

Some people think L. Ron Hubbard was the real deal, too. Faith is a wonderful thing; so is using your brain. Joseph Smith was a convicted con man; Hubbard was a bad science-fiction writer.

No, a few will not suffice. To follow the test explicitly, you must evaluate all of Smith’s prophecies; if any one does not prove true, then he is a false prophet.

So many things in the Book of Mormon conflict with the Old and New Testament that it calls the entire LDS religion into question. Try working your way through the articles posted in the library of Catholic Answers; if you can offer a point-by-point refutation of the claims made in those articles without referring to the Book of Mormon as authoritative (because that is what is under examination here), we’ll listen to you. But I’ll say to you what I said to BYU-BOY: leave the “burning in the breast” garbage out of it. We are not dealing with strange feelings or irrationalisms here; we are proceeding from cold logic.

If you can’t do that, then stand back and let real Scripture scholars (Katholikos comes to mind) speak.

My husband’s former marriage was not annulled, they simply forgave him and reinstated his right to take communion and go to confession. There was no annullment. The tribunal also said that the priest could have taken care of everything, but the priests did not know that. We were sent to many (at least 5) priests who turned their backs. Even the priest on the radio said there was no hope. They tried to get my husband to say his marriage was not valid, but he could not say that, so they simply forgave him and had him say the 30 hail marys and that was it, after 25 years of telling him he could not take part in the church communion and confession. Suddenly they changed their minds. Why do you suppose that was? He still can’t go to the one priest for confession because that priest believes differently than the other priests.
You claim your religion never changes, I am pointing out that if there is money given and a possible connection through the orphanage to abuse, then the rules are changed.

 

[Tmaque]

BJ Colbert:

My husband’s former marriage was not annulled, they simply forgave him and reinstated his right to take communion and go to confession. There was no annullment. The tribunal also said that the priest could have taken care of everything, but the priests did not know that. We were sent to many (at least 5) priests who turned their backs. Even the priest on the radio said there was no hope. They tried to get my husband to say his marriage was not valid, but he could not say that, so they simply forgave him and had him say the 30 hail marys and that was it, after 25 years of telling him he could not take part in the church communion and confession. Suddenly they changed their minds. Why do you suppose that was? He still can’t go to the one priest for confession because that priest believes differently than the other priests.
You claim your religion never changes, I am pointing out that if there is money given and a possible connection through the orphanage to abuse, then the rules are changed.

BJ, you’re looking at Catholic heirarchy with Mormon eyes. As an ex-mormon it took me some time to realize that the Catholic church exercises far less control over what individual priests and bishops do than the Mormons do. This is a frustration I have but I’ll put up with it because I have no choice. Just because a priest, tribunal, bishop or anything else gave your husband absolution for a sin that he is unrepentant of doesn’t mean that the church has changed it’s doctrine. There are many priests and bishops in the church that have their own take on things and unlike Mormonism some dissent and disagreement IS allowed in the Catholic church.

If your husband and you are living celibately now that may explain it. If not, then there is a problem with the tribunal, priest, etc. following church doctrine.

 

[flameburns623]

BJ Colbert:

My husband’s former marriage was not annulled, they simply forgave him and reinstated his right to take communion and go to confession. There was no annullment. The tribunal also said that the priest could have taken care of everything, but the priests did not know that. We were sent to many (at least 5) priests who turned their backs. Even the priest on the radio said there was no hope. They tried to get my husband to say his marriage was not valid, but he could not say that, so they simply forgave him and had him say the 30 hail marys and that was it, after 25 years of telling him he could not take part in the church communion and confession. Suddenly they changed their minds . . . .

Um . . . .what? This was a Roman Catholic Church? 'Scuse me: I am Anglican and not Catholic but I find the details here rather confusing. The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church explicates the official position of the RCC on this topic and if your husband was not dealt with in accordance with the Catechism and other germaine rulings of the RCC, well that is a pity. I am not saying that YOU or your husband did anything wrong, but that whomever handled your husband’s case did so inappropriately. Perhaps they disagree with the official RCC position which forbids divorce. Perhaps there were other personal issues at stake.

SUCH MISHANDLING OF SUCH MATTERS BY LOCAL IDEOLOGUES OR FOR PERSONAL REASONS IS NOT THE UNIQUE PURVIEW OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. A few months ago, I saw on the LDS Deseret Books Forum a posting in which an LDS family was having troubles which, it was universally agreed, were due to the mishandling of this family’s case by the local ward bishop (a ‘ward’ being roughly equivalent to a parish, an LDS bishop being the primary pastoral leader of the ward). The last I knew, this case was being taken to the Stake President for resolution (a ‘Stake’ being roughly the administrative equivalent of a Catholic diocese, the President being the head thereof). The LDS Church has manuals and other guidelines for how this family’s situation was to have been handled: from what those posting disclosed on-line, the ward bishop was ignoring these and following a personal agenda (‘vendetta’ might be a more accurate term). The proper solution was to take the case to higher authorities who could presumably be relied upon to ensure the matter resolved appropriately.

By the same token: the RCC has certain standard operating procedures regarding marriage. Some who have risen to leadership roles in the RCC have differences of opinion about those matters and misuse their authority. In this case, it appears this is what is going on. I DON’T think there is an issue of monetary extortion–annulments, I’m told, CAN be expensive, but there are ‘waivers’ of the required stipends where someone has need of pro bono assistance. Your local diocese should have been able to help you with this matter. To my knowledge, although annulments are given out rather more liberally in the Roman Catholic Church in the USA and other Western countries than was the practice in the past, the DOCTRINE on this matter has not been changed.

So far as I understand things, your husband’s prior marriage–in most cases–would HAVE TO BE ANNULLED before he could receive sacraments. There are exceptions, such as if it was a non-Christian marriage in which at least one partner was never a Christian throughout the marriage. I believe this would be called the ‘Petrine Privilege’. Or for certain other reasons–in “Radio Replies” I recall someone who was dispensed from an annullment because they essentially contracted a ‘marriage’ which was not ‘till death do part’ but only until ‘we do both tire of it’. Such exceptions are rare but perhaps your husband’s prior marriage somehow fit such a case. In any case, resolving such an issue on this forum or in this thread seems a bit more than we could manage to help you with.

 

[Edwin1961]

moira:

I’ve heard that he copied several chapters directly from the KJV bible. It’s purely a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination.

Joseph Smith must have had bad eyesight, he used a bad pair of glasses to read the tablets.

I live 6 miles away from Kirtland, Ohio…where Joseph Smith had the Temple build in 1833. (some of his family members his mother among them buried in the graveyard north of the temple) My grandmother lived 1/4 of a mile south of the temple and when it got dark, we just to go in her bad yard and see the spire of the temple brightly lit.
And yes, we lived through the Lungrend horror of 1986-1987. He originally wanted to kill everyone one mile from the temple, that would have included my grandmother and my uncles and aunts.

(Sorry for getting somewhat off topic, but I wanted to relay this story).

Go with God!
Edwin