Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[nutshell]

Uh oh, sounds like somebunny got a little spanking :biglaugh:

And gee, you were the one who told us how great it was nutshell, or did you forget?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...entalism-blacks-priesthood-11.html#post981619

I saw this post of yours and went over there to check it out. I wander around 3 or 4 forums regularly (you of all people have a problem with that??) As to my gender, it's right there in plain sight like it always has been.

A spanking? What are you talking about? I can visit CARM whenever I want, but don't because the people there have lost the Light of Christ. They demonstrate the qualities of Satan and when you call them out on it they try this "It's because we love" you song and dance. Give me a break. by their fruits...

As for my post, it referred to the LDS at CARM compared to the LDS here and in many ways, it still stands.

Finally, I don't care what forums you check out, but you should know the forums you choose to hang out have will reveal certain things about you.

Now why don't you run back to your buddies and have your ego stroked some more.

 

[Bishka]

That's just .... juvenile. As a matter of fact we could use that acronym to label the less-than-substantive posts here of, er, some people.

You whole attitude is juvenile. You proved your whole existence in being at Religious Forums is to tell the Muslims and the Mormons how horrible, wrong, awful, evil and not-Christian (the LDS) are.

They way you act here speaks volumes about who you really are. You are attacking, we are just merely defending our faith. It is a disgusting thing to see a fellow Christian (or someone who merely claims to be a Christian) acting this way.

It's sad how yourself (and a couple of others) make it their main purpose here at Religious Forums to single out a single religion/church/etc. and tell them how bad, awful, non-whatever they are and make it their whole goal at this forum.

Do you really think it will help? What is the point in doing it? Ecumenism is much better then half-truths and lies (especially from a anti-sources).

 

[gnomon]

It's sad how yourself (and a couple of others) make it their main purpose here at Religious Forums to single out a single religion/church/etc. and tell them how bad, awful, non-whatever they are and make it their whole goal at this forum.

This is pretty much the norm.


So....can anyone here actually recognize a larch?

Larch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Larch.

 

[Bishka]

This is pretty much the norm.

That's odd.

When I joined, I came to learn and to be taught and to figure out more about other faiths. Not to degrade a single faith or person. :no:

 

[gnomon]

That's odd.

When I joined, I came to learn and to be taught and to figure out more about other faiths. Not to degrade a single faith or person. :no:

True.

But now, I bring you foliage.

Birch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Birch.

 

[Bishka]

True.

But now, I bring you foliage.

Birch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Birch.

You know, I've never been able to tell trees apart, I have no clue how anyone can.

 

[Autodidact]

Please point out where I've been rude to anyone in this thread. I believe that I've disagreed sharply with you, and stated as much, but I try to avoid rudeness. Maybe you are confusing making opinion statements that disagree with your religious beliefs with rudeness?

It's not that I have a negative opinion about Mormons in particular, I just think your beliefs are false. And no, I don't have special respect for false opinions just because they're religious opinions. It is a simple fact that the archeological evidence does not support your religious beliefs. I can understand that it's upsetting to you to have that pointed out to you, but that doesn't make it rude.

You might be upset because I pointed out the logical possibility that Joseph Smith was a con artist. Not only is it a logical possibility, but the overwhelming evidence seems to support this possibility. I realize that you consider him a true prophet of God, and it is painful to you to be aware that most people who know anything about him think he was a con man, but that doesn't make my strong opinion that he was either incorrect, unsupported or rude.

While you may not be able to imagine saying these things about someone else's religious leader (not even Jim Jones?) I'm sure you can imagine hearing them, and even saying them, about atheists. Tables turned? For goodness sakes Katzpur, I'm a Jewish lesbian atheist. Try to imagine the things that have been said to and about me, my beliefs, and my way of life. My response is not to complain, but to show the speakers why they are wrong. That's kind of the custom at internet debate boards like this one. Maybe you're upset because you have not succeeded in doing so.

 

[!Fluffy!]

whoa, you are all pulling off topic way too hard. Again. Wonder why?

Please point out where I've been rude to anyone in this thread. I believe that I've disagreed sharply with you, and stated as much, but I try to avoid rudeness. Maybe you are confusing making opinion statements that disagree with your religious beliefs with rudeness?

It's not that I have a negative opinion about Mormons in particular, I just think your beliefs are false. And no, I don't have special respect for false opinions just because they're religious opinions. It is a simple fact that the archeological evidence does not support your religious beliefs. I can understand that it's upsetting to you to have that pointed out to you, but that doesn't make it rude.

You might be upset because I pointed out the logical possibility that Joseph Smith was a con artist. Not only is it a logical possibility, but the overwhelming evidence seems to support this possibility. I realize that you consider him a true prophet of God, and it is painful to you to be aware that most people who know anything about him think he was a con man, but that doesn't make my strong opinion that he was either incorrect, unsupported or rude.

While you may not be able to imagine saying these things about someone else's religious leader (not even Jim Jones?) I'm sure you can imagine hearing them, and even saying them, about atheists. Tables turned? For goodness sakes Katzpur, I'm a Jewish lesbian atheist. Try to imagine the things that have been said to and about me, my beliefs, and my way of life. My response is not to complain, but to show the speakers why they are wrong. That's kind of the custom at internet debate boards like this one. Maybe you're upset because you have not succeeded in doing so.

Well put, Autodidact. And no, you have not been rude.

You should never feel compelled to explain your reason for posting in a public debate. Your contributions here have been informative, well researched and your arguments so far have been flawless. It's just another distracting off the topic tactic aimed at directing attention away from the issues being discussed, that's all.

However I have to add to your impressions here and point out that this kind of tactic is personally offensive. Attacking someone's character like this is the favorite refuge of charlatans and those lacking a solid argument, for example:

You're trashing the things I hold sacred. I guess you get something out of it

You proved your whole existence in being at Religious Forums is to tell the Muslims and the Mormons how horrible, wrong, awful, evil and not-Christian (the LDS) are.

They way you act here speaks volumes about who you really are.

It's sad how yourself (and a couple of others) make it their main purpose here at Religious Forums to single out a single religion/church/etc. and tell them how bad, awful, non-whatever they are and make it their whole goal at this forum.

Now why don't you run back to your buddies and have your ego stroked some more

...etc. Most of the earlier ones were just ignored, but I responded to the latter, as it was way below the belt (though hardly original or unexpected).

Rather than responding to the issues or points being made rationally, (which is a lot of work sometimes requiring critical thinking skills, research and logic) it appears some of the mormons here have chosen the low road and prefer to toss insults or find any other way possible to go off topic. Anger, opinion, insults - no facts. That's more a reflection of a person's (lack of) character than anything you or I have said here. You have handled yourself admirably.

So thanks autodidact, and consider yourself fruballed.

And for the rest of you, kindly stay on topic. Please.

/offtopic

 

[Bishka]

And for the rest of you, kindly stay on topic. Please.

/offtopic

Like you have.

 

[Melissa G]

The question wasn't to denigrate Faith, it was too examine by factual enquiry if Smith was a prophet or a con-artist, clearly by all the evidence, and lack of it, he was indeed a con-artist.

 

[Bishka]

The question wasn't to denigrate Faith, it was too examine by factual enquiry if Smith was a prophet or a con-artist, clearly by all the evidence, and lack of it, he was indeed a con-artist.

The harder you try to convince yourself, the more ridiculous you sound.

 

[Popeyesays]

The question wasn't to denigrate Faith, it was too examine by factual enquiry if Smith was a prophet or a con-artist, clearly by all the evidence, and lack of it, he was indeed a con-artist.

I don't think you can make an objective judgment on such a thing. "C;early" is NEVER a modifier for a subjective judgment.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Autodidact]

I would say that the preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate that is the most likely scenario.

 

[nutshell]

I would say that the preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate that is the most likely scenario.

Of course you would say that while many of the LDS on the thread would say the preponderance indicates otherwise.

 

[Melissa G]

The harder you try to convince yourself, the more ridiculous you sound.

I think you have that in reverse.

 

[sojourner]

I don't know Soj, that raises an interesting point. Can a prophet be a prophet just for some people? If a prophet tells an eternal truth, wouldn't that be a truth for everyone everywhere?

A related question, can a prophet be a prophet if he tells some eternal truth, but is very wrong about other things?

You made me stop and think. I think, though, that I'll stick with my original thought here. The job of the prophet is to be a spokesperson for God. Communication takes a sender as well as a receiver. If the receiver isn't receiving there is no communication, hence, no prophet.

Even Jesus said that a "prophet is not a prophet in his own city."

Jesus is not a prophet for some, even though he is a prophet for me.

No. I don't believe that Smith was a prophet. For me.

 

[astarath]

The work of a prophet was to speak God's word. Those who were given a task appointed by God would be able to recite the words spoken to them forever. As to my understanding Smith was unable to provide 2 identical writings of his prophetic message. Surely the spirit alone would not allow such a travesty to God's truth to occur.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course you would say that while many of the LDS on the thread would say the preponderance indicates otherwise.

Yes and unfortunately, there is really no such thing as an unbiased opinion in this case.

For myself, this was my first foray into really learning about some of this evidence and frankly I was surprised at how bad it was, how weak, or rather adverse, the archeological evidence was for the assertions in the Book of Mormon. The main responses I got from the LDS posters were:
1. We don't know what the BoM meant. The words may have referred to something else. A pretty awful theological position to take for your holy text, written in English.
Or, similarly, it must mean the opposite of what the LDS church has said for decades, such as that the Lamanites are NOT the principle ancestors of the Indians, etc. O.K., to preserve the alleged truth of the text, you have to completely change what it means. Useful book you got there.
2. We may find some evidence some day, even though we've found none yet. Well, yes, and we may find evidence that Joseph Smith was on mescaline at the time, and I may win the lottery....
3. Here's a shred of something that I don't necessarily agree with and that, taken in isolation, could match something said, if you ignore all the accompanying evidence that clearly shows it couldn't possibly have been what it sort of looks like. O.K., if that's the best you can do, I think we can safely assume that it's false.
4. Stuff about Israel, literary analysis of form of language used, etc. Which frankly I don't have time to learn about all this stuff, and just concentrated on the New World stuff.

So for myself, coming at it as a relatively uninformed non-Mormon, I was surprised to learn that the situation for LDS beliefs, at least the objective ones, is much worse than I had previously thought.

 

[nutshell]

Yes and unfortunately, there is really no such thing as an unbiased opinion in this case.

For myself, this was my first foray into really learning about some of this evidence and frankly I was surprised at how bad it was, how weak, or rather adverse, the archeological evidence was for the assertions in the Book of Mormon. The main responses I got from the LDS posters were:
1. We don't know what the BoM meant. The words may have referred to something else. A pretty awful theological position to take for your holy text, written in English.
Or, similarly, it must mean the opposite of what the LDS church has said for decades, such as that the Lamanites are NOT the principle ancestors of the Indians, etc. O.K., to preserve the alleged truth of the text, you have to completely change what it means. Useful book you got there.
2. We may find some evidence some day, even though we've found none yet. Well, yes, and we may find evidence that Joseph Smith was on mescaline at the time, and I may win the lottery....
3. Here's a shred of something that I don't necessarily agree with and that, taken in isolation, could match something said, if you ignore all the accompanying evidence that clearly shows it couldn't possibly have been what it sort of looks like. O.K., if that's the best you can do, I think we can safely assume that it's false.
4. Stuff about Israel, literary analysis of form of language used, etc. Which frankly I don't have time to learn about all this stuff, and just concentrated on the New World stuff.

So for myself, coming at it as a relatively uninformed non-Mormon, I was surprised to learn that the situation for LDS beliefs, at least the objective ones, is much worse than I had previously thought.

Well, you said there was no unbiased opinion and your're right - in fact, your responses above demonstrate your own.

Here are my responses to the same:

1. The text has not been adjusted when one considers the introduction and head notes were not a part of the original gold plates. Those parts came from church leaders doing their best based on their scientific understanding. In other words, those parts were not divine, IMO. With new information comes adjustments, again, because it's based on academic understanding and not some revelation from God.

2. We may find some evidence of what? Evidence does exist for the BoM.

3. I don't know what you mean by 3.

4. OK - if you're unwilling to make the effort then we can safely assume it's true.

Now, I think we've had this discussion before, but I am not a BoM literalist. I find Truth in the text whether the events actually happened or not.

 

[Bishka]

I think you have that in reverse.

Melissa,

The only "evidence" you've found is your own bias and opinion against the subject. Or did you think that you were always right and the world revolved around you?