Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[SoyLeche]

The churches had, in fact, strayed? In what way is that factual?

Noah wasn't a prophet. "Prophet" denotes an office with a specific ministry. Noah didn't have that, because the religion that spawned prophets hadn't been invented yet.

Smith bought in to faith, but not into the system of religion. Remember, a prophet is a product (and part of) a system of religion.

The thing is that Smith just doesn't act in the role of the Biblical prophet.

It's factual because it happened It's just not provable.

Well, I think we're going to have to disagree on our definitions of "prophets" then. Not a big problem, just gives us a chance to stop talking past each other.

Why should Joseph Smith act like a Biblical Prophet? He's a modern day prophet. Different circumstances (and a whole heckuva lot more is known about him, his life, and the circumstances he worked within).

 

[SoyLeche]

Like I said, Smith is a lot more like an Enoch or a Noah (or even a Moses) than an Isaiah. Hinckley would be more like an Isaiah or Haggai.

 

[sojourner]

It's factual because it happened

It's just not provable.

It did? How do you know, if it's not provable?

 

[SoyLeche]

It did? How do you know, if it's not provable?

Because someone I believe to be a Prophet (and whom God has confirmed to me actually was a Prophet) said that God told him that they had. I know - not very satisfying logically, but it's the best that can be expected.

How do you know that it didn't?

 

[Melissa G]

So, God spoke to you and told you Smith was a prophet ? and yet you say in the same line you believe Smith to be a prophet. Your correct, totally unsatisfactory logically. Must be dismissed on the grounds that a belief does in no way constitute a fact.

Melissa G

 

[Aasimar]

Because someone I believe to be a Prophet (and whom God has confirmed to me actually was a Prophet) said that God told him that they had. I know - not very satisfying logically, but it's the best that can be expected.

How do you know that it didn't?

Because someone I believe to be a Prophet (and whom God has confirmed to me actually was a Prophet) said that God told him that Joseph Smith is not a prophet. Not very satisfying logically, but it's the best that can be expected.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So, God spoke to you and told you Smith was a prophet ? and yet you say in the same line you believe Smith to be a prophet. Your correct, totally unsatisfactory logically. Must be dismissed on the grounds that a belief does in no way constitute a fact.

Melissa G

Mellissa, if I may derail this subject for a moment, I would like to apply the same logic test for anything you believe in. How do you know the Goddess is real or for that matter how about global warming? I think this is where faith is introduced into the equation. Being picky about semantics proves nothing.

 

[Autodidact]

Mellissa, if I may derail this subject for a moment, I would like to apply the same logic test for anything you believe in. How do you know the Goddess is real or for that matter how about global warming? I think this is where faith is introduced into the equation. Being picky about semantics proves nothing.

No, it is not at all the same. That is, the Goddess is, but global warming is not. No one appeared to anyone and imparted a divine revelation that carbon emissions are increasing. Climatologists actually measure the gradually increasing atmospheric temperature, and if you like you can measure it yourself. You can look up the weather records kept in your town as far back as they go, and then take the temperature this year, and compare them. Thousands of scientists have observed and made millions of measurements: pack ice in the North Arctic, glaciers in Alberta, sea levels in Bangladesh, the hole in the ozone layer, the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere, the spread of pine beetle borers, and thousands of other things, all of which are available to be measured by anyone who cares to do so. The records kept by other people, not for the purpose of promoting anything, but merely for the purpose of recording things, like whether they were able to skate on the canals in Amsterdam in the winter of 1899 or whatever, are all available to anyone who takes the trouble to look them up. None of this is private, subjective, only available to people who already believe, non-reproducable, or in any way like divine revelation. In fact, it is the opposite.

And that is why the climatologists studying the problem have been able to reach a consensus that the earth's atmosphere is warming, and that increase is caused largely by human activity.

Theologists cannot reach a consensus on anything, because they cannot use the scientific method to study the supernatural.

 

[SoyLeche]

So, God spoke to you and told you Smith was a prophet ? and yet you say in the same line you believe Smith to be a prophet. Your correct, totally unsatisfactory logically. Must be dismissed on the grounds that a belief does in no way constitute a fact.

Melissa G

True, but neither does a belief negate a fact. At the most we can say, like I've already said, that it is unprovable. Either way, it is still possible that the churches did, in fact, stray, just like Smith said they did. I believe that they did, so I accept it as a fact. Feel free to disagree (not that you need my permission ).

 

[Autodidact]

True, but neither does a belief negate a fact. At the most we can say, like I've already said, that it is unprovable. Either way, it is still possible that the churches did, in fact, stray, just like Smith said they did. I believe that they did, so I accept it as a fact. Feel free to disagree (not that you need my permission ).

To say, I believe it, therefore it's a fact, is exactly backwards. Unless you have some good reason to believe it, the fact that you do has no bearing on whether it's true. Do you have any basis for telling truth from fiction? Or do you just believe whatever you like?

 

[Melissa G]

A fact is a fact, verifable by evidence. Belief is belief, and is not verifiable by evidence, therfore a belief in no way constitutes a fact. And Auotodidact, made a good point, belief exists only in the mind of the believer, and certainly not in the external world.

Melissa

 

[Popeyesays]

I'm a Baha'i. There is no doubt that His existencer is a fact, and the writings by Him are also a fact as far as authorship and existence are concerned.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Melissa G]

Prove it Scott,

Melissa

 

[Popeyesays]

Prove it Scott,

Melissa

Baha'u'llah was born in 1817 CE, Melissa. One can view His passports from both Persian and the Ottoman Empire-- it includes His photo. His exiles are a matter of public record and the British orientaloist Edward Browne had an ibnter view with him in 1892 some months before His passing. His son visited Europe and the United States and his phot was taken at countless public events during those visits. He was in fact knighted by England in 1919 for service to the people of Palestine during the Great War.

The writings of Baha`u'llah exist in Hiw own hand or the hands of His secretaries (taken in dictation) and reviewed and authenticated in transcript by Baha`u'llah.

Hiostorically there is no doubt of His existence.

rEGARDS,
sCOTT

 

[Melissa G]

I am fine with that Scott, only I was wondering how the existence of a human, proves there is a God.

Regards
Melissa

 

[SoyLeche]

I'd suggest going back to post 707 or so and rereading the conversation. Quick overview:

Plenty of things that did, "in fact", happen are not provable. That's not the point at all. The point is that Sojourner made a statement about Smith "rejecting the religion" (which, he didn't really do anyway, he "rejected" the churches) because it had strayed. This would make sense if the "churches" had "in fact" strayed. I've already conceded that whether or not the churches had strayed is unprovable. I do believe that they did, "in fact", stray though. There is nothing inconsitent with saying that something did "in fact" happen if you believe that it did "in fact" happen - especially if it isn't provable. The rest is merely a discussion about why I believe this did, "in fact", happen.

I'd suggest getting over semantics (and probably a poor word choice on my part) and getting back to the actual discussion, which, in this case, would probably be best served by Sojourner defending his definition of "Prophet" - because his definition is foreign to me, and the discussion about whether or not Smith fits the "biblical definition" of "Prophet" won't go very far if we aren't on the same page about what the "biblical definition" of "Prophet" is.

 

[madhatter85]

Even you, Melissa, excersize faith every day. every time you flip a light switch you believe that something will happen based on your previous experience. It is not a fact that every time you flip a lightswitch that a light will come on, but that is a belief system. that information of you flipping that lightswitch is known only to you unto your own understanding. When you plant a seed, you have faith, or you believe, that it will grow into a plant. Everyone everywhere exersizes faith every day weither or not in be in God.

I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God because of personal experience. not because someone "said so." I know for a fact that the teachings brought forth by his hand are the only way in this world to achieve true happiness that will extend beyond this mortal existence. You cannot say that he was a "great moral teacher" or a "good author" because he did not write the Book of Mormon. in 3 months a book was published that was 500+ pages long that coincides perfectly with the Bible from every facet. a book that with 200 years of viscious attacks to prove it's divinity wrong stands firm and immovable.

How do I know that Joseph smith was a Prophet of God? Because we have the Book of Mormon.

How do I know the Book of Mormon is true? Because we have it.

How do I know that there is no other way that people on this earth will be truely happy? Because in soberness I have seen it with my own eyes, and i have experienced the fruits of the Tree that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Though I haven't visited this thread recently, I've been actively researching the subject (Joseph Smith), and have plunged into reading the History of the Church, though of course I haven't been able to read the whole thing yet.

What has struck me is the somewhat remarkable similarity of modus operandi Joseph Smith shares with Mohammed and the Koran.

1. visitation by "angels"
2. exaltation of a "prophet"
3. extraction and rewording of biblical texts to make a "new scripture"
4. claims that the new, improved religion is God's response to universal apostasy, and all others are in error.
5. claims that the Bible has been "mistranslated" by Jews and Christians
6. denial of the true (as traditionally understood by most of Christendom) nature of the Biblical Christ.

the result? a simple obedience and works-based salvation plan emphasizing rules and rituals, overlooking or diminishing the concept of grace. another ritualistic method to keep people in line, obedient, ensuring the progression of authoritarian rule by hierarchy.
*edit*: oh and i forgot to add polygamy.

i started thinking, thank God JS wasn't another Napoleon...


Joseph Smith printed a sermon by associate Sidney Rigdon in pamphlet form. In this July 4th oration, Rigdon threatened, "And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seal of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed." wiki, Rigdon's July 4th Sermon
------------------------------------

and a sworn affidavit of Thomas B. Marsh from the Church History:

The Prophet inculcates the notion, and it is believed by every true Mormon, that Smith's prophecies are superior to the laws of the land. I have heard the Prophet say that he would yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; and if he was not let alone, he would be a second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, 'the Alcoran or the Sword.' So should it be eventually with us, 'Joseph Smith or the Sword.' These last statements were made during the last summer. The number of armed men at Adam-ondi-Ahman was between three and four hundred" (History of the Church 3:167).


Seems JS and Mohammed were similarly inspired, perhaps by the same source.

 

[Autodidact]

Even you, Melissa, excersize faith every day. every time you flip a light switch you believe that something will happen based on your previous experience. It is not a fact that every time you flip a lightswitch that a light will come on, but that is a belief system.

It's a pretty good bet, however, based on:
My knowledge of electricity and our infrastructure.
My familiarity with my own house an its maintenance.
My previous experience with light switches.
It is also entirely possible that the light won't come on, and that would not astonish me.

that information of you flipping that lightswitch is known only to you unto your own understanding.

What does this mean?

When you plant a seed, you have faith, or you believe, that it will grow into a plant.

Again, I have valid, evidentiary reasons for believing this.

Everyone everywhere exersizes faith every day weither or not in be in God.

Duh. However, not all instances of exercizing faith are equally justified. Right? So the question becomes, is this particular instance justified by the evidence. You agree?

I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God because of personal experience. not because someone "said so."

Really? Can you share what that personal experience is?

I know for a fact that the teachings brought forth by his hand are the only way in this world to achieve true happiness that will extend beyond this mortal existence.

You do??? You know what's going to happen after we die? And you know that following Joseph Smith's teachings will affect that in a specific way? How do you know that? Have you died? Have you talked to someone who did?

You cannot say that he was a "great moral teacher" or a "good author" because he did not write the Book of Mormon.

No you certainly can't, because it's terribly written.

in 3 months a book was published that was 500+ pages long that coincides perfectly with the Bible from every facet. a book that with 200 years of viscious attacks to prove it's divinity wrong stands firm and immovable.

Have you read this thread? Almost everything in it is just plain wrong! Let's take a simple example: There is no evidence that there has ever been an immigration from the near east to America that resulted in a substantial colony of metal using, wheat growing, cattle herding, people. The Book of Mormon says there was. It's wrong.

How do I know that Joseph smith was a Prophet of God? Because we have the Book of Mormon.

How do I know the Book of Mormon is true? Because we have it.

How do I know that Dr. Seuss is a prophet of God? Because we have Red Fish Blue Fish . How do I know Red Fish Blue Fish is true? Because we have it. Huh?

How do I know that there is no other way that people on this earth will be truely happy? Because in soberness I have seen it with my own eyes, and i have experienced the fruits of the Tree that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You've never known a single non-Mormon who was happy? Well, meet autodidact, the happy, atheist, lesbian. And you want to talk fruits? You should see mine. Major fruits over here.

 

[Katzpur]

Wow! I just noticed that there are 6,184 views of this thread! Since I firmly believe there is no such thing as negative advertising, I just thought I'd drop in and thank Melissa and Autodidact for their tenacity and determination in making this thread so popular. Plus, we're up to almost 1000 posts! I'll be anxiously awaiting post number 1000 and, by then, probably view number 7000!