Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[CynthiaCypher]

No prophets. None at all. Zippo.

I think you are just ignorant of what a prophet is.

 

[Nymphs]

I think you are just ignorant of what a prophet is.

Not ignorant at all. No god, no prophets.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Not ignorant at all. No god, no prophets.

My! Such a limited vocabulary. Is that all you have to say?

 

[Nymphs]

My! Such a limited vocabulary. Is that all you have to say?

This is an attack on my character, not the argument. Nice try.

There is no god, thus no prophets (including Joseph Smith and any Mormon prophet). Please address that.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

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). During the difficult infant days of Christianity Paul taught the same principle: that prophets and apostles would always serve as the foundation of Christ's true church. He declared 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).

These scriptures make it clear that wherever the true gospel of Christ is ministered, it will be directed through a prophet of God. The Savior also knew that false prophets would rise up and decieve many, and so gave this piece of counsel concerning true prophets: "ye shall know them by their fruits... a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (Matthew 7:16-18).

Undoubtedly many false prophets have come forth since the time of Christ. We have even seen some in our own day such as David Koresh, and Warren Jeffs, who each have been exposed by the evil fruits of their works.

In harmony with the teachings of Amos, Paul, and Christ himself, true prophets have also come forth in the due time of the Lord, and heeded the divine call to reveal truth and minister the true gospel of Christ. After a long season in which a famine of prophetic leadership prevailed, God chose once again to call a prophet.

In the spring of 1820 God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appeared in person to a mere boy and commissioned him to a divine work. Joseph Smith was called to be the mouthpiece of God to man, just as all the holy ancient prophets had been. Through this prophet, God restored truths that had been corrupted, priesthood authority that had been lost, and a church organization that had been dormant since the days of the early Apostles.

The fruits that have proceeded from the ministry of Joseph Smith are many and are far from evil. The good fruits produced by this tree include a worldwide church that is active and dilligent in the preaching of salvation through Christ, the establishment of additional scripture that further clarifies the doctrines of the gospel, the providing of relief to the poor and the needy, and the rearing of families with strong moral values just to name a few.

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man, but he was a good man who was called of God to be a prophet to the world. And though he was persecuted for his testimony of Christ, he was dilligent and faithful in his call as a true prophet of God.

All honest seekers of truth must at least consider with sincerity the mission and fruits of the prophet Joseph Smith. Either Joseph was indeed a true prophet or he was a deceiptful fraud.

If he was a true prophet then the doctrines and authority that he restored are pure and true.

If he was not a true prophet...
- either the major fruits of his labor must be evil
- or somehow good fruit came from a corrupt tree despite what Christ taught

So where do you stand?

I see no reason why God would put an intermediary between himself and humans. If I were God, I would whisper the word into each and every ear on the planet, and it would ring true in the bodies whom it was spoken into. Alas, that god does not exist because everyone has a different idea of who and what that god is...or perhaps that god does exist.

 

[Watchmen]

This is an attack on my character, not the argument. Nice try.

There is no god, thus no prophets (including Joseph Smith and any Mormon prophet). Please address that.

If someone could predict the future, wouldn't they be described as "prophetic" regardless of whether there is a god or not?

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

If someone could predict the future, wouldn't they be described as "prophetic" regardless of whether there is a god or not?

The question is whether the person IS predicting the future or whether they are just approximating a logical projection of the future. Many of us don't even try to predict the future when we do...but it happens.

 

[Nymphs]

If someone could predict the future, wouldn't they be described as "prophetic" regardless of whether there is a god or not?

Depends how accurate their prediction is, but no, I would not call them prophetic. Most people who 'predict' the future have studied trends and ideas and can accurately predict things. Besides, there hasn't been any actual predictions that have come true detail for detail.

 

[oldbadger]

........................................ Besides, there hasn't been any actual predictions that have come true detail for detail.

There have been many......... here is just one that is gonna rock the World:-

1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2

Some prediction. Some Prophet. Humanity in self centered denial.
Just like many biblical reports!
Woe!

 

[DeepShadow]

There is no god, thus no prophets.

Your statement that there are no prophets rests on the nonexistence of God. You have made an affirmative claim (there is no god) and have other claims resting on it (thus no prophets). Burden of proof is now on you to back it up. Please show that God does not exist.

 

[Nymphs]

There have been many......... here is just one that is gonna rock the World:-



Some prediction. Some Prophet. Humanity in self centered denial.
Just like many biblical reports!
Woe!

Not a prophet. Used science.

 

[Nymphs]

Your statement that there are no prophets rests on the nonexistence of God. You have made an affirmative claim (there is no god) and have other claims resting on it (thus no prophets). Burden of proof is now on you to back it up. Please show that God does not exist.

Actually, it does not. The burden of proof lies upon those that claim there is a god. So, go!

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Outside of broad-scope definitions of god, such as 'the universe is god' or 'consciousness is god,' there is no evidence to prove any god exists, let alone a god that wants worshippers and delivers messages via prophets. In the big scheme of things, it does sound a bit absurd, doesn't it?

 

[Nymphs]

Outside of broad-scope definitions of god, such as 'the universe is god' or 'consciousness is god,' there is no evidence to prove any god exists, let alone a god that wants worshippers and delivers messages via prophets. In the big scheme of things, it does sound a bit absurd, doesn't it?

:yes:

 

[McBell]

There is no god, thus no prophets (including Joseph Smith and any Mormon prophet). Please address that.

You are wrong.
Address that.


Now if you think that the above is not an argument, you would be right.
Why is your bold unsubstantiated claim an argument?
It isn't.


So until such time as you present an actual argument, no one can address it.

 

[DeepShadow]

Actually, it does not. The burden of proof lies upon those that claim there is a god. So, go!

(source: wiki)The burden of proof lies upon anyone who asserts a claim. "There is no god" is just as much an assertion as "there is a god." "Asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood..."

You have made the claim that there is no God. Burden of proof is on you.

You are welcome to amend your claim to a non-assertion (i.e. "I don't believe there is a god,") or to make any other modifications, or even to argue from ignorance (i.e."There is no evidence for a god,"). Or you can retract the claim.

But until you retract or modify the assertion, the burden of proof rests on you for asserting it.

 

[DeepShadow]

Outside of broad-scope definitions of god, such as 'the universe is god' or 'consciousness is god,' there is no evidence to prove any god exists, let alone a god that wants worshippers and delivers messages via prophets. In the big scheme of things, it does sound a bit absurd, doesn't it?

Ah, the argument from absurdity! Yeah, because absurd things never turn out to be true.

I've heard people make the same argument against evolution, that it's utter nonsense for men to have evolved from primordial soup. That all of this just happened by chance, like the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.

Kinda sounds absurd, doesn't it?

Pro tip: anything sounds absurd if you arrange it as an absurdity. By doing this, you can make your opponents seem silly and foolish, and you don't actually have to make any logical arguments! Yay!

 

[McBell]

Ah, the argument from absurdity! Yeah, because absurd things never turn out to be true.

I've heard people make the same argument against evolution, that it's utter nonsense for men to have evolved from primordial soup. That all of this just happened by chance, like the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.

Kinda sounds absurd, doesn't it?

Pro tip: anything sounds absurd if you arrange it as an absurdity. By doing this, you can make your opponents seem silly and foolish, and you don't actually have to make any logical arguments! Yay!

What a sad desperate looking reply.

Protip:
Instead of flat out ignoring the meat of the post you reply to, try addressing it.

It is interesting how you are so quick to jump on the word absurd to declare a fallacy yet completely ignore the fact that there is zero objective empirical evidence for god.

And you claim the high ground?
Pathetic really.

 

[Nymphs]

(source: wiki)The burden of proof lies upon anyone who asserts a claim. "There is no god" is just as much an assertion as "there is a god." "Asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood..."

You have made the claim that there is no God. Burden of proof is on you.

You are welcome to amend your claim to a non-assertion (i.e. "I don't believe there is a god,") or to make any other modifications, or even to argue from ignorance (i.e."There is no evidence for a god,"). Or you can retract the claim.

But until you retract or modify the assertion, the burden of proof rests on you for asserting it.

There is no objective evidence for god or the supernatural -- that isn't ignorance, that's a fact, but if you want to argue semantics, go ahead, I'll bow out because it isn't worth arguing with someone who won't even consider the idea of there not being a god or prophets.

The burden of proof lies with you -- it is initially a Mormon claim (Joseph Smith = prophet).

 

[DeepShadow]

What a sad desperate looking reply.

Protip:
Instead of flat out ignoring the meat of the post you reply to, try addressing it.

It is interesting how you are so quick to jump on the word absurd to declare a fallacy yet completely ignore the fact that there is zero objective empirical evidence for god.

And you claim the high ground?
Pathetic really.

I'm sorry, I missed the "meat" you are talking about. Really, I apologize, to you and to Turkey. Was I supposed to address how there is no objective evidence of God? I totally agree. I've never said there was any objective evidence of God. There's also no objective evidence that I love my wife, in the sense that I've never done anything that could not be duplicated by a very clever sociopath. Likewise for her affections for me--it's possible she's just really good at faking it. I have LOTS of subjective evidence, but nothing objective.

It's the same with God. I have no objective evidence, but if I limited my decisions and actions to things I have objective evidence for, I would not be able to eat breakfast in the morning.