Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[doppelganger]

Wow, you give Joseph a lot of credit.

There are lots of intelligent people who produce their greatest work when they are young and without a formal education. It's nothing special. Well, nothing that require unique divine intervention anyway . . .

Did George Carlin, Daniel Dennet, or Julia Childs ever claim to be a prophet of God?

What difference does that make? Anybody can claim that.

How do you identify truth?

By its truthfulness to me.

 

[Comprehend]

Of course not. And if it inspires you, then who am I to say it shouldn't? The fact that it has many adherents doesn't make the dogmas and myths of Mormonism any more "true" than any others.

obviously.

OTOH, why is the OP asking my why I'm not a Mormon? It does nothing for me as a mythology aside from stimulate my curiosity in the creative detail, and as a literal "truth", I think it's probably a product of Joseph Smith's imagination. If you don't like the answer, don't ask.

I don't mind your answer. I did say "I guess it can't inspire everyone..." I was just pointing out to you and others that it does inspire an ever growing number of people around the world. that's all.

 

[Polaris]

What difference does that make? Anybody can claim that.

It makes a big difference. Anyone who honestly claims to be a prophet of God is either decieved, a liar, or they are infact a true prophet. That is why, at least in part, Jesus instructed that "by their fruits ye shall know them". Liars and those spiritually decieved to that extent aren't capable of producing such consistent and abundant good fruit.

 

[doppelganger]

It makes a big difference. Anyone who claims to be a prophet is either decieved, a liar, or they are infact a true prophet.

Or delusional. In Smith's case, since you demand an answer, my opinion is probably a liar at first and that gradually turned into delusional, as many big lies tend to do.

 

[Comprehend]

I'm not making an argument. I'm expressing my opinion in response to a question.

In any case, why would I care whether Deep Shadow changes his mind? I assume he's invested emotionally in his faith and any such "debate" would be a waste of time, just like all such debates are. Moreover, since it's the OP that is proselytizing Mormonism, the question is not whether I can prove Smith dreamed it all up, but whether you can prove to my satisfaction otherwise. Trust me in saying that NO FACTUAL ASSERTION no matter how ridiculous you think it might seem can EVER be disproved.

I'll take that as a no. I am amazed that nobody want's to give that a shot...

So did JRR Tolkien, L. Ron Hubbard, Baha'u'llah, Madonna and Lenny Bruce . . .

really? Did any of the authors above claim to have an ancient factual record that has turned out to be more and more in line with actuality the longer the record is around and the more the secular world learns about the ancient world?

Did their books correctly claim things that were not known at the time? Did they demonstrate knowledge of customs and cultures that were not known to thier society at the time?

I didn't know all that. :sarcastic

 

[doppelganger]

I'll take that as a no. I am amazed that nobody want's to give that a shot...

What would be the purpose? It's like "global warming" "creationism" or any other pointless and stupid debate.

really? Did any of the authors above claim to have an ancient factual record that has turned out to be more and more in line with actuality the longer the record is around and the more the secular world learns about the ancient world?

Yes.

Did their books correctly claim things that were not known at the time? Did they demonstrate knowledge of customs and cultures that were not known to thier society at the time?

Yes. Especially in the case of Tolkien and L. Ron Hubbard.

 

[doppelganger]

really? Did any of the authors above claim to have an ancient factual record that has turned out to be more and more in line with actuality the longer the record is around and the more the secular world learns about the ancient world?

By the way, the evidence of that is extremely underwhelming.

Did their books correctly claim things that were not known at the time? Did they demonstrate knowledge of customs and cultures that were not known to thier society at the time?

Same with that.

 

[Polaris]

Or delusional. In Smith case's, since you demand an answer, my opinion is probably a liar at first and that gradually turned into delusional, as many big lies tend to do.

One problem with that position is in the supporting testimonies as to both Joseph's integrity and to certain divine manifestations. Many men and woman who knew him well have testified of his honesty, integrity, and selflessness. Similary there are many who have been present during certain divine manifestations that have provided their own witnesses to such events, such as the witnesses to the gold plates, etc.

I have a very hard time believing that Joseph was such an accomplished liar and manipulator to be able to suck so many people into his delusions and lies yet at the same time produce works, organizations, and fruits that are so widely respected as institutions that do much good.

 

[Popeyesays]

There's a difficult challenge that honest people face who don't accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet. They have to answer these questions:

- Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

- Did Joseph Smith produce such a theologically and logistically complex work all on his own at such a young age and with such little formal education?

- In light of Christ's instruction: "by their fruits ye shall know them", how do you reconcile your belief that Joseph is not a true prophet -- his efforts produced many good fruits?

- How would you identify a true prophet?

- Where then are the true prophets that Amos and Paul promised would participate in the ministry of the true gospel of Christ?

I am genuinely curious how you answer these questions.

"- Where did the Book of Mormon come from?" There is no evidence it came anywhere but from Smith's fertile imagination and desire to impart what he felt ought to be true.

"- Did Joseph Smith produce such a theologically and logistically complex work all on his own at such a young age and with such little formal education?"
First of all, I don't find it complex--neither theologically nor logistically. Conjecture about the Lost Tribes of Israel certainly pre-dates Smith.

"- In light of Christ's instruction: "by their fruits ye shall know them", how do you reconcile your belief that Joseph is not a true prophet -- his efforts produced many good fruits?" The fruits of Mormonism are the fruits of Moses and Jesus. Smith makes no claim to be a major Prophet on His Own authority like Moses and Jesus did. The Book of Mormon is merely "another testament of Christ". That makes Smith only a minor prophet like Malachi or Habakkuk.

"- How would you identify a true prophet?" First He has to make a claim on His own authority, then you judge Him by the fruits of the revelation. Smith never made any claim on his own behalf.

"- Where then are the true prophets that Amos and Paul promised would participate in the ministry of the true gospel of Christ?" If you refer to the "reswtoration" evidenced by the current Prophet and APostles of the LDS, then I give them no authority at all if I give Smith no authority.


Regards,

Scott

 

[Wandered Off]

The Old Testament prophet Amos taught that "the Lord God will do nothing but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7).

"God always speaks through prophets."
"Oh? How do you know?"
"Well the prophets said so." :slap:

Second-hand revelation: "Some guy said God told him to tell you..."

 

[Polaris]

"- Did Joseph Smith produce such a theologically and logistically complex work all on his own at such a young age and with such little formal education?"
First of all, I don't find it complex--neither theologically nor logistically. Conjecture about the Lost Tribes of Israel certainly pre-dates Smith.

Conjecture concerning the Lost Tribes is only a miniscule part of what I referred to as the complexity of the Book of Mormon. This topic is worthy of its own thread, but to be short, the language, cultural content, doctrinal consistancy, writing styles, etc, found in the Book of Mormon present an extremely complex piece of work, especially for a young man just past his teenage years and with very little formal schooling.

"- In light of Christ's instruction: "by their fruits ye shall know them", how do you reconcile your belief that Joseph is not a true prophet -- his efforts produced many good fruits?" The fruits of Mormonism are the fruits of Moses and Jesus.

While some of the fruits of Mormonism overlap with the fruits of Moses and Jesus, it also has its own unique good fruits. In both cases Mormonism is a tree with many good fruits and as Jesus clearly taught: a false prophet cannot produce good fruit.

Smith makes no claim to be a major Prophet on His Own authority like Moses and Jesus did. The Book of Mormon is merely "another testament of Christ". That makes Smith only a minor prophet like Malachi or Habakkuk.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "major" Prophet, but Joseph certainly claimed to be a prophet of God. Even if Joseph was what you call a "minor" prophet like Malachi, does that not mean that the doctrines he taught came from God?

"- How would you identify a true prophet?" First He has to make a claim on His own authority, then you judge Him by the fruits of the revelation. Smith never made any claim on his own behalf.

Joseph did claim to be called of God and a prophet of the same -- he claimed to receive authority directly from heavenly messengers. In what way do you judge the fruits of revelation?

"- Where then are the true prophets that Amos and Paul promised would participate in the ministry of the true gospel of Christ?" If you refer to the "reswtoration" evidenced by the current Prophet and APostles of the LDS, then I give them no authority at all if I give Smith no authority.

No I'm talking about the promise Amos made that "the Lord God will do nothing but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7) and the promise that Paul made that prophets and apostles would be needed for the work of the ministry until all come in the unity of the faith in Jesus Christ (see Ephesians 4:11-13).

 

[doppelganger]

One problem with that position is in the supporting testimonies as to both Joseph's integrity and to certain divine manifestations. Many men and woman who knew him well have testified of his honesty, integrity, and selflessness. Similary there are many who have been present during certain divine manifestations that have provided their own witnesses to such events, such as the witnesses to the gold plates, etc.

If you say so. I don't find confirmation by members of the religion's in-crowd to be all that compelling. If "God" were all that concerned about proving his "true message" why go with such lame proof as his prophet supposedly knowing things he's not supposed to know when all you have to do is keep the plates for people to look at them? It also seems exceptionally silly to me that "God" would be speaking King James or Elizabethan era English in upstate New York in 1827. But that's just me.

I have a very hard time believing that Joseph was such an accomplished liar and manipulator to be able to suck so many people into his delusions and lies yet at the same time produce works, organizations, and fruits that are so widely respected as institutions that do much good.

Why aren't you a Muslim, Baha'i or a Scientologist then? Muhammad, Baha'u'llah and L. Ron Hubbard all did this as well.

 

[ayani]

He doesn't stand out as a prophet to me. He had a few interesting things to say, but all-in-all I find Smith's mythology fascinatingly detailed but largely uninspiring.

yes, i would have to agree. i find Smith to be an interesting man, but for me, LDS cosmology and doctrine is more cluttered and layered than inspiring.

still, i'm glad for those LDS who find solace in their faith and church, and i have to say that you guys have some of the most beautiful houses of worship around.

 

[doppelganger]

you guys have some of the most beautiful houses of worship around.

Indeed. LDS temples are quite beautiful.

 

[Polaris]

If you say so. I don't find confirmation by members of the religion's in-crowd to be all that compelling.

Fair enough, I can understand that. But it is interesting that several of the eye witnesses to the gold plates separated themselves from the church for a time yet never once denied their witness of the gold plates and their divinity. In fact all but one came back to the church before their deaths.

If "God" were all that concerned about proving his "true message" why go with such lame proof as his prophet supposedly knowing things he's not supposed to know when all you have to do is keep the plates for people to look at them?

I don't think God is concerned about proving his true message to us in that way. True conversion and true testimony is based on spiritual experience and conviction, not physical evidence. God has always used the testimony of prophetic witnesses in conjunction with the influence of the Holy Spirit to teach and confirm his truths to mankind.

It also seems exceptionally silly to me that "God" would be speaking King James or Elizabethan era English in upstate New York in 1827. But that's just me.

That may be due to a misunderstanding concerning the translation process. We have few details concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon, but there are accounts that have described the process as a flow of information in a more conceptual manner rather than a word for word translation. It is reasonable to believe that Joseph used KJV language simply because it was familiar to him and seemed appropriate for scriptural language.

Why aren't you a Muslim, Baha'i or a Scientologist then? Muhammad, Baha'u'llah and L. Ron Hubbard all did this as well

Did all of them claim, by their own accord, to be prophets of God?

 

[Polaris]

but for me, LDS cosmology and doctrine is more cluttered and layered than inspiring.

Just out of curiosity what doctrines do you find cluttered and layered?

 

[Popeyesays]

To draw the example of major and minor prophets it is helpful to think of the Arabic terms: Nabi (lesser prophet) and Rasul. (major prophet).

A minor prophet speaks with the authority of the Revelation of a major prophet. Habbakuk, Malachi, for Moses. Or Peter and Paul speaking as minor prophets for Jesus. Or in some senses as Ali spoke with Muhammed's authority for Islam. Josedph Smith NEVER spoke on his own authority, it was the authoirty of Christ. That means he did not bear a unique Revelation from God.

Jesus testified to the truth of Moses, but He spoke with His own authority, not the authority of Moses. Moses acknowledgede the truth of Abraham, but used His own authority as granted by God.

So the "fruits" of Joseph Smith are the fruits of Christ's Revelation not Joseph Smith's.

The whole assumption of the Book of Mormon is that the lost tribes sailed to North America. If that is not true or cannot be self-evidently true then I have no choice but to doubt the whole thing.

As to the youth of Joseph Smith, well the Bab was only a few years older, and the Bab was not religiously educated either. The Bab still speaks on His Own authority as the Remembranfce of God and the Primal Point.

That makes all the difference to me.

Regards,

Scott

 

[doppelganger]

That may be due to a misunderstanding concerning the translation process. We have few details concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon, but there are accounts that have described the process as a flow of information in a more conceptual manner rather than a word for word translation. It is reasonable to believe that Joseph used KJV language simply because it was familiar to him and seemed appropriate for scriptural language.

Why would it be familiar to him unless he were a Bible scholar, specifically a scholar of the King James translation? That seems to fly in the face of claims that he was unsophisticated or uneducated. In any case, I thought the translation was actually witnessed. What gives with this misunderstanding an uncertainty about the translation process all of a sudden?

Did all of them claim, by their own accord, to be prophets of God?

Yes.

 

[doppelganger]

So why aren't you a Mulsim following Muhammad or a Baha'i following Baha'u'llah? They also claimed to be prophets of "God".

 

[doppelganger]

I don't think God is concerned about proving his true message to us in that way. True conversion and true testimony is based on spiritual experience and conviction, not physical evidence.

Then why are you trying to convince people to become Mormons based on evidence rather than "spiritual experience and conviction"? And doesn't that answer your own question about the value of DeepShadow's proposed debate?