Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[sojourner]

Yes they were worthy. Worthy does NOT equal perfection.

How do you know? And, if they were worthy, it wasn't by virtue of their having embraced the "right" doctrine -- it was because God, through God's grace, counted them worthy, God's own self.

 

[nutshell]

How do you know? And, if they were worthy, it wasn't by virtue of their having embraced the "right" doctrine -- it was because God, through God's grace, counted them worthy, God's own self.

How do you know they weren't?

God will use whom He will use. That's right, God counted them worthy and revealed his doctrine through them.

 

[Melissa G]

So I know how to approach my rebuttal, would you give the same response if I said the Garden of Eden was a literal place, Adam and Eve literally lived there, and Noah built a literal boat to save humanity from a literal flood?

Of course, you can no more believe in the OT, than the BOM. Both are unverifible by all the know evidence. Moses for instance, was supposed to have written down the ten commandments in Hebrew. Sadly for the OT, at the supposed time of Moses, there was no hebrew written script...fact.

Melissa G

 

[sojourner]

How do you know they weren't?

God will use whom He will use. That's right, God counted them worthy and revealed his doctrine through them.

Again, no one is worthy, except through the grace of God. That doesn't appear to fit in with Madhatter's criteria. My questions for him (and for you) are these: Who decides what it means to be "worthy?" Who decides who is "worthy" and who is not? What are the criteria for "worthiness?" How do we know if someone is "worthy" or not? Why is "worthiness" one of the attributes of someone in authority? Because, obviously, according to ya'll's belief, only someone who is "worthy" can have authority.

 

[Autodidact]

That Lindsay's evidence isn't compelling to you doesn't mean that it's not evidence.

Or persuasive to anyone with any expertise in the field, Mormon and non-Mormon. I don't think you can name a single professional archeologist, working in that geographical area, who thinks that ancient Meso-american people are the people described in the BoM. That's because the people described there, their entire way of life, doesn't match that of ancient Meso-american people. So I don't know what it's evidence of. It's basically irrelevant. It would be like saying that the Mayans built pyraminds. I suppose that's evidence that they were Egyptian, except that we know that they weren't, so it turns out not to be. To put it differently, we could say that if that's the best evidence you have, then we can safely conclude that what is described in the BoM did not in fact happen.

I do think the BoM is "true." Does that mean I think it is literal? Not necessarily. Does it mean I believe it is the Word of God and that it teaches us His Truth so that we can come unto Christ? Absolutely. So, I do believe the BoM is true, from a certain point of view.

Since I am an atheist and have no ground on which to argue what is or is not the Word of God, I will let this go without comment.

I don't think the BoM claims that American Indians couldn't possibly have built these cities. In fact, the Church's official position on the matter is that those in the BoM were among the ancestors of the Native Nations. This would seem to imply that the Native Nations were doing much if not all of the building on their own. I also would like to point out (and I'm sure you already know) that some of the greatest ancient cities of South America pre-date the supposed arrival of Nephi and company. It seems people were building the big stuff long before anyone from the old world showed up.

It's not that it specifically claims that. It's rather that Joseph Smith, a white person, looks around at the burial mounds being discovered and the artifacts, hears about other stuff being discovered, and assumes that they couldn't possibly have been made by the Indians he is familiar with; there must have been an immigrant population actually responsible. That to me is the premise the whole book is based on--Joseph Smith's racist assumptions.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's how I see it. The Book of Mormon is a literal and true story of an actual people who lived somewhere in the Americas.

What people? Where? Why do you think we have no archeological evidence to verify this, and lots to counter it?

The questions of where they lived and what percentage of Native Americans have some of the blood of the Book of Mormon people is unanswered.

No it's not. Anthropologists have answered it. The answer is: zero.

I have always understood, before DNA evidence, that the Americas were probably also populated by other peoples from other parts of the world. The DNA evidence does not contradict this concept.

Right, other parts of the world, namely, Asia. That's what the DNA evidence shows. Want me to lay it out for you? What is clear is that American Indians are NOT descended from people from the Ancient Near East.

 

[Autodidact]

Ah! But my initial response to you was because you said there was NO evidence. You didn't qualify it as no "persuasive" evidence. So, to take this a step further, the evidence is not persuasive to you, which does not mean it may not be persuasive to others.

Alright, a peppercorn of irrelevant evidence that would not persuade any objective evaluator, O.K.?

To the shock of the LDS on this forum: No, I don't believe in it literally. As with most mythology, I think there is a mixture of fact and fiction, so I wouldn't go so far as to say "none of that actually happened."

alright, which parts do you think are factual?

I think the focus of the LDS teachings is that Jesus is the Christ and that this is the message of the Book of Mormon. I've never heard archeological evidence discussed in any church meeting - only on message boards such as this. When I'm asked by my Bishop whether I believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God, I can answer "Yes" with a clear consciouness (did i spell that right?) even though I don't believe all the stories literally happened.

I believe that Missionaries do use this in their proselytizing, no?

The Church is currently clarifying? changing? it's position on this. It can be found in the introduction to the Book of Mormon. For many decades the introduction contained this line:

"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. "

This line has been changed and will read as follows:

"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

For the LDS, this isn't an either/or question. The DNA evidence obviously supports the claim that the Native Nations are of Asian descent. However, just because evidence has not been found of any Semitic people as of yet does not mean it does not exist.

Doesn't mean that it does, either. Basically there is no evidence to support this claim, and we now know quite a lot on this subject.

As our knowledge grows, I think LDS academia is realizing that, if the BoM is literal truth, the people portrayed made up a much smaller group than originally thought.

Right, like around 0%, something like that. Also, the BoM reports populations of millions of people, tremendous battles with thousands of casualties. It seems like either (1) they'd leave descendants, whose DNA you could look at (2) they'd leave archeological evidence of these huge battles with chariots, swords, etc, tremendous citeis with agricultural and herding infrastructure, etc. or (3) both. Yet what we find it (4) None of the aboe.

I'd also like to point out that the introduction is not considered scripture or canon by the LDS. It was not part of the gold plates and it was never put to pen by Joseph Smith. Rather, it was created by LDS academia, which was led, at the time, by Bruce McConkie (someone I, personally, have a lot of problems with because of the things he said (i.e. often giving personal opinion rather than sticking with Church doctrine even though he was a "high-ranking" leader)).

Yes, let's just look at the book itself, it is quite wrong enough without getting into the obvious fact that BoM heirarchy no more received divine revelation than I do.

 

[Autodidact]

So I know how to approach my rebuttal, would you give the same response if I said the Garden of Eden was a literal place, Adam and Eve literally lived there, and Noah built a literal boat to save humanity from a literal flood?

Definitely. Both are myths, as the evidence shows. However, the BoM is a more recent, elaborate, specific and easier to disprove myth.

 

[Bishka]

So, eighty-seven pages later and what's the point of this thread again? Oh wait, I remember, to tell us we are wrong..... You ask for 'evidence', we give you what we believe is evidence, but no matter what we give you, you won't accept it. Honestly, if we showed you the Golden Plates and told you what they were, you still wouldn't believe until it was 'proven' by God that He gave them to us. I am not even sure why you even pursue this, unless you really like arguing with people who aren't going to change their minds.

 

[Autodidact]

So, eighty-seven pages later and what's the point of this thread again? Oh wait, I remember, to tell us we are wrong..... You ask for 'evidence', we give you what we believe is evidence, but no matter what we give you, you won't accept it. Honestly, if we showed you the Golden Plates and told you what they were, you still wouldn't believe until it was 'proven' by God that He gave them to us. I am not even sure why you even pursue this, unless you really like arguing with people who aren't going to change their minds.

Well, the problem is that you haven't provided anything that would qualify as evidence. The reason I don't accept it is that it is not persuasive. That is, the problem is not with me, but with the evidence that YOU DON'T HAVE. For example. Honestly, if the moon were made of green cheese, I would eat it on sourdough toast, but it isn't, so what? You don't have the Golden Plates because there never were any Golden Plates, just as you don't have any:
archaeological evidence
DNA evidence
linguistic evidence
of what happened in the BoM because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. I would change my mind in a minute if you did present that kind of evidence. But you can't, because it doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist because it didn't happen. In any case, the point isn't my mine--who cares? The point is the facts themselves. Does the evidence support the BoM? If you think it does, please show us. We're xx pages into the thread and all we've got is:
1. The BoM doesn't actually mean what it says.
2. We might find some evidence in support of it someday.
3. Obscure and irrelevant literary criticism.

If you have something better, like a find of an ancient metal sword anywhere in America, BRING IT FORTH!

That's why Mormons have such a problem with their scholars leaving their church. They go into a field like DNA research or archeology, just knowing that they're going to find all kinds of support for the BoM, because they've been told it's true. Then they find out it wasn't. They go through a crisis of faith. Then they either leave or are booted out.

 

[sojourner]

I really don't think evidence is properly at issue here. What is at issue, I feel, in the question of whether or not Smith was a prophet, is how God operates in raising up prophets.

 

[madhatter85]

If you look at history in the Bible, that is exactly HOW God calls his prophets, he gives them commandments and prepares them, people reject the prophets and end up suffering the consequences, such as Noah.

the real question, biblicaly speaking is thier fruits, do they bring forth nothing but good?

Matthew 7:

7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
...
15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?


17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Joseph Smith broguth forth nothing but good works and people persecuted him unto his murder. The church he established has flurished into an unshakable kingdom. Those who follow the teachings of the restored gospel live longer lives, have a lower divorce rate, have higher educations,

Fruits

Now, even as someone begins to understand a few facts about us and comes to know us more accurately by our faith and the importance of family, it was the Savior who said “by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20; emphasis added). A church, or any way of life, should be judged by the fruits or the results that it generates. Here are a few examples based on United States statistics. But these would be similar throughout the world among practicing Mormons (by which we mean those who attend church and the temple regularly):

• One of the fruits is a longer life. Studies show that practicing Mormons are healthier and therefore live longer than the national average. In 1833 the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith the Word of Wisdom, which is the way to live in order to enjoy a long and healthy life.
• Second, those who are married in and attend the temple regularly have a divorce rate far below the national and world average.
• Third, we achieve an educational level that is higher than the national average.
• Fourth, over 70,000 members volunteer at their own expense to serve for 18 to 24 months in humanitarian efforts, Church service assignments, and full-time missionary service throughout the world.
• And fifth, we place strong emphasis on self-reliance and a solid work ethic. We encourage active involvement in our communities and in providing service to others. The Church continues to donate substantial money, goods, and services to humanitarian causes around the globe, including untold hours of labor donated by members to assist in disaster cleanup and relief.

-
Faith, Family, Facts, and Fruits


Elder M. Russell Ballard
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

 

[nutshell]

Again, no one is worthy, except through the grace of God. That doesn't appear to fit in with Madhatter's criteria. My questions for him (and for you) are these: Who decides what it means to be "worthy?" Who decides who is "worthy" and who is not? What are the criteria for "worthiness?" How do we know if someone is "worthy" or not? Why is "worthiness" one of the attributes of someone in authority? Because, obviously, according to ya'll's belief, only someone who is "worthy" can have authority.

Someone is worthy when God says they are. It's really that simple - the disagreement is in how each of us believes God communicates that worthiness.

 

[Autodidact]

I really don't think evidence is properly at issue here. What is at issue, I feel, in the question of whether or not Smith was a prophet, is how God operates in raising up prophets.

Assuming there is any such thing.

 

[madhatter85]

Assuming there is any such thing.

interesting coming from an athiest,. As if we did not know that this was all hypothetical in your eyes considering we are talking about religion and God.

 

[Bishka]

If you have something better, like a find of an ancient metal sword anywhere in America, BRING IT FORTH!

Like I said, even if we presented you with anything like this, you still would say "Prove it's from the Book of Mormon," to us. People like yourself aren't really trying to learn anything, just trying to prove their superiority over others.

 

[sojourner]

Someone is worthy when God says they are. It's really that simple - the disagreement is in how each of us believes God communicates that worthiness.

That's my point. You all cannot say definitively that the rest of us are not worthy. You may believe that, but belief don't make it so anywhere outside the walls of the LDS.

 

[sojourner]

If you look at history in the Bible, that is exactly HOW God calls his prophets, he gives them commandments and prepares them, people reject the prophets and end up suffering the consequences, such as Noah.

the real question, biblicaly speaking is thier fruits, do they bring forth nothing but good?

Matthew 7:


Joseph Smith broguth forth nothing but good works and people persecuted him unto his murder. The church he established has flurished into an unshakable kingdom. Those who follow the teachings of the restored gospel live longer lives, have a lower divorce rate, have higher educations,

Fruits

-
Faith, Family, Facts, and Fruits


Elder M. Russell Ballard
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

And all of this has...what, exactly, to do with my statement?
The fact that you think you're superior in some fictional way has no bearing on Smith as a prophet.

 

[Autodidact]

Like I said, even if we presented you with anything like this, you still would say "Prove it's from the Book of Mormon," to us. People like yourself aren't really trying to learn anything, just trying to prove their superiority over others.

And like I said, if Santa Claus really lived at the North Pole, he'd need extra-warm long underwear. Now can we get back to reality, in which you in fact DON'T have anything like this?

Did you notice how I'm focusing on the evidence and lack of it, not the attitude of people who continue to treat their mythology as fact despite not having any evidence to support it?

 

[madhatter85]

And all of this has...what, exactly, to do with my statement?
The fact that you think you're superior in some fictional way has no bearing on Smith as a prophet.

It indeed has to do with Joseph Msith being a true Prophet of God. "ye shall know them by their fruits"

Like i said, the real question when wanting rpoof in regards to chrisitanity is the fruits.