Nymphs
Well-Known Member
There is no objective proof. Again.
Present some and we might have a rousing argument.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Joseph Smith - Prophet of God
- Thread starter Polaris
- Start date
There is no objective proof. Again.
Present some and we might have a rousing argument.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Has anyone claimed to have "objective" proof that Joseph Smith was a prophet or are you merely beating up on a strawman?
Please note that I have not been diverted from your blatant hypocrisy.
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
To prove something is a fact, you need objective proof. People are claiming that Joseph Smith is a prophet. That cannot be a fact without objective proof.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
so what objective proof do you have o support your claim that Joseph Smith is not a prophet?
What objective proof do you have that god does not exist?
And please do not try your hypocritical line of BS about lack of evidence being proof.
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
This thread is about me. It's about people claiming he is. :sorry1: not :sorry1:
I'll wait for an actual Mormon to respond to me.
No one puts Joseph Smith above Christ. If you think so you're wrong about Mormons. That's not what we believe at all.
Well, that's where you're wrong. For example, critics used to bash the Book of Mormon because a reference to horses then it was discovered there could have been horses in the Americas. There's also been studies done that shows the Book of Mormon includes a writing pattern also found in ancient Israel. How could Joseph Smith and his farm boy education know of these things? Do they prove he was a prophet? No. But it shows you're theory is wrong.
That too! Haha!
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
Please include links to such studies that ARE NOT done by BYU, FARMS, etc.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
It is rather difficult to take you seriously when you employ such blatant double standards.
So now you want proof only from sources you'll agree with? Pathetic.
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
Not at all. Personal attacks notwithstanding, I want something NOT biased by the Mormon Church. Those sources have a clear bias as they are trying to prove their religion.
So far, I'm not seeing any proof from any source, so until then I'll assume you have none.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
McBell
Admiral Obvious
How is your picking and choosing what is and what is not true any different from your claims that the studies mentioned suffer from Mormon bias?
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
They aren't trying to prove their religion is true, they are just giving the facts that are there and moving on. I'll be waiting for these studies from anyone who has them.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you could read my post and address what is in it?
Will not be responding to any further posts by you in this thread unless they are studies that prove/disprove the claims that Watchmen put forth.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
It isn't like your responses to my posts have had much of anything to do with the content of my posts.
And I seriously doubt your ignoring my posts will keep you from putting your foot in your mouth.
Nor will your ignoring my posts stop me from pointing out your foot being in your mouth.
Hi Watchmen/Mestemia : I agree that Nymphs demand for information “about the LDS”, but only from “non-LDS” sources is completely silly and completely transparent.
I visit the forum rarely but wanted to make a comment on this thread.
Obviously we all see the world through our own perspectives. I am an adult convert to LDS Christian theology. Because I already had a prior protestant belief in God and in Jesus Christ as our redeemer, I did not need to change these specific beliefs upon adopting LDS theology. Because of my background and interest in early judeo-christian textual history, I tend to view LDS theology through that narrow lens.
I was introduced to LDS theology by a respected university scholar who was adopting LDS theology and described their early impression of it, including the LDS base claim that LDS theology was a restoration of a version of early Christianity. I knew nothing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (I thought the Book of Mormon was Brigham Young's diary of the “mormons” move to the west….) It was both the quality of this scholar and their life, as well as this claim to be a version of early Christianity that piqued my interest. I felt then and still feel, that IF the base LDS claim that Joseph Smith restored a version of early Christian theology was correct, then base parallels to LDS theology should be found in the earliest judeo-christian textual traditions.
In my historical area of interest, the “objective” data often consists of the early Judeo-Christian texts, mishnas, sacred and historical texts, hymns, lectionaries, psalms, early Christian fiction literature, the sacred libraries such as the documents from Nag Hamadi, Qumranic documents, Papyri (oxyrhynchus, etc). Most of such texts became available only after Josephs lifetime.
For me, the historical interest was not historical themes where Joseph Smith agreed with other Christian movements who held to early Christian traditions, but in early base doctrines and traditions that were part of early the Judeo-Christian movement but which were lost to or obscured to most modern movements. Did his “restoration” involve the transfer of obscure or lost early Judeo-Christian traditions into the modern age or not?
As I became more aware of LDS claims and parallels to early judeo-christian literature, I remember the tentative and growing awareness of multiple early doctrinal themes that fell into that category of "restoration" of a base doctrine. For examples :
The LDS recognized the base concept that modern Christian movements and the doctrines are not, in the main, the same as early Judeo-Christianity.
The early Judeo-Christian doctrine/tradition of the spirits of mankind existing as spirits before the creation of the earth and the details of what God was doing and his motives and purposes of creation are no longer taught in any significant detail and depth in modern Christian movements. Whereas this theme both underlies early judeo-christian theology and was taught in greater detail and depth in early judeo-christian texts. LDS theology restores this theological theme in greater depth and detail than any modern Christian movement of which I am aware. This theme and it’s expanding implications neatly removes 1800 years of philosophical disputes regarding many of life’s perceived injustices, injustice of God, variability of character; source of Evil; the origin of the Devil; the reasons for the Devil’s enmity, etc.
LDS theology restores the early version of creation-from-matter rather than creation from “nothing”.
Early Judeo-Christian pre-existent tradition placed the fall of Adam (and the rest of us) into a logical context for an omniscient God (i.e. Did God anticipate and intend the fall of mankind or was he dupe by a wiley Lucifer?, etc). The LDS theology restores the Judeo-Christian concept that the fall was the original plan of God and not a “glitch” in an omnipotent and omniscient God’s original plan.
Early Judeo-Christians also describe their belief in post death existence of a cognizant spirit and their literature contain descriptions of a physical resurrection, of the gospel being taught to those spirits who had no chance to learn of it when alive; of eternal principles of Justice based of variable reward, etc. These are NOT themes that the majority of modern Christians teach or even are aware of, yet they are restored to LDS theology in versions that parallel early Judeo-Christian descriptions.
When one discusses the early Judeo-Christian tradition of Christ’s decensus into Hell, most protestant movements do not have any detail or depth to this doctrine, certainly nothing as detailed as the early judeo-christians possessed. Yet LDS theology contains a discretely accurate version of this tradition.
As we continue to recover and discover and analyze vast and detailed early Judeo-Christian libraries and texts, it will continue to change our base assumptions and paradigms regarding Early Judeo-Christian beliefs. The scholars are adopting the new base theory regarding the Henotheism of per-exilic Jews. This new paradigm of the scholars is a parallel to that of LDS theology. The new accepted base theory regarding the council of “gods” (small “g”
that is causing so much excitement and illumination among scholars of Early Ugaritic/Judaic history is wonderful and it is creating historical connections in many different direction. It is also a parallel to the restoration of the LDS model. This new and vast discoveries of early textual data is funneling these scholars into directions that are friendly to LDS theology that is almost 200 years old.
Like many others who have adopted LDS theology, I have considered other theories as to where and how Joseph Smith could possibly have developed a mature and detailed ancient theology and detailed traditions that so closely paralleled relatively unknown and obscure early Judeo-Christian traditions and theologies in so many ways in some manner other than revelation. I was unable to do it then and am unable to do so now. The sheer magnitude of the historical task of doing this is difficult to explain. My examples are merely broad strokes of large base themes. Often the details underlying these themes are even more impressive historically.
It’s as though the panama canal appeared overnight and a man standing there with a shovel claims to have dug it. If someone counters, “No, he had a friend helping him!”, it still doesn’t explain the impossibility of what was done, whether it was two people or a hundred who are involved.
To me, Historically, it feels like the young Joseph Smith did something similar. Joseph Smith appears on the scene with a mature, detailed, version of multiple early judeo-christian theology with multiple parallels to early Christianity which, in his age, disagreed with the majority of the Christian Movement, but which , in reality, truly were correct parallels to early Judeo-Christian doctrines and traditions.
Even if I theorize : “he stole it from someone else”, this doesn’t solve anything because it simply transfers to another person what is still impossible. If I say that this teenager from the early 1800s amassed a group of eclectic scholars who knew traditions and doctrines that only a handful of scholars in that age knew, still, I am left trying to explain the multiple inconsistencies, increasing improbabilities, and problems that each new theory creates, (including how these scholars themselves knew texts and data that had not yet been discovered). My point is, that every theory I considered is even less likely and involves as many or more improbabilities than the theory the LDS claim. That is, that Joseph Smith received this mature and detailed model of Early Christian Base theology through revelation as a source.
There are other reasons why I believe Joseph Smith received based doctrines by revelation, but, for me, the vast amount of the earliest sacred judeo-christian texts feels like they are a vast source of fairly objective textual data that serves as a reference for what early Judeo-Christians believed and the later texts (i.e. 150 c.e. and beyond) become increasingly good data as to the evolutions and changes that took place among the various christian movements.
Watchmen / Mestemia, Good luck in your journeys
Clear
φυτζτωσενε / futztwsene
I visit the forum rarely but wanted to make a comment on this thread.
Obviously we all see the world through our own perspectives. I am an adult convert to LDS Christian theology. Because I already had a prior protestant belief in God and in Jesus Christ as our redeemer, I did not need to change these specific beliefs upon adopting LDS theology. Because of my background and interest in early judeo-christian textual history, I tend to view LDS theology through that narrow lens.
I was introduced to LDS theology by a respected university scholar who was adopting LDS theology and described their early impression of it, including the LDS base claim that LDS theology was a restoration of a version of early Christianity. I knew nothing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (I thought the Book of Mormon was Brigham Young's diary of the “mormons” move to the west….) It was both the quality of this scholar and their life, as well as this claim to be a version of early Christianity that piqued my interest. I felt then and still feel, that IF the base LDS claim that Joseph Smith restored a version of early Christian theology was correct, then base parallels to LDS theology should be found in the earliest judeo-christian textual traditions.
In my historical area of interest, the “objective” data often consists of the early Judeo-Christian texts, mishnas, sacred and historical texts, hymns, lectionaries, psalms, early Christian fiction literature, the sacred libraries such as the documents from Nag Hamadi, Qumranic documents, Papyri (oxyrhynchus, etc). Most of such texts became available only after Josephs lifetime.
For me, the historical interest was not historical themes where Joseph Smith agreed with other Christian movements who held to early Christian traditions, but in early base doctrines and traditions that were part of early the Judeo-Christian movement but which were lost to or obscured to most modern movements. Did his “restoration” involve the transfer of obscure or lost early Judeo-Christian traditions into the modern age or not?
As I became more aware of LDS claims and parallels to early judeo-christian literature, I remember the tentative and growing awareness of multiple early doctrinal themes that fell into that category of "restoration" of a base doctrine. For examples :
The LDS recognized the base concept that modern Christian movements and the doctrines are not, in the main, the same as early Judeo-Christianity.
The early Judeo-Christian doctrine/tradition of the spirits of mankind existing as spirits before the creation of the earth and the details of what God was doing and his motives and purposes of creation are no longer taught in any significant detail and depth in modern Christian movements. Whereas this theme both underlies early judeo-christian theology and was taught in greater detail and depth in early judeo-christian texts. LDS theology restores this theological theme in greater depth and detail than any modern Christian movement of which I am aware. This theme and it’s expanding implications neatly removes 1800 years of philosophical disputes regarding many of life’s perceived injustices, injustice of God, variability of character; source of Evil; the origin of the Devil; the reasons for the Devil’s enmity, etc.
LDS theology restores the early version of creation-from-matter rather than creation from “nothing”.
Early Judeo-Christian pre-existent tradition placed the fall of Adam (and the rest of us) into a logical context for an omniscient God (i.e. Did God anticipate and intend the fall of mankind or was he dupe by a wiley Lucifer?, etc). The LDS theology restores the Judeo-Christian concept that the fall was the original plan of God and not a “glitch” in an omnipotent and omniscient God’s original plan.
Early Judeo-Christians also describe their belief in post death existence of a cognizant spirit and their literature contain descriptions of a physical resurrection, of the gospel being taught to those spirits who had no chance to learn of it when alive; of eternal principles of Justice based of variable reward, etc. These are NOT themes that the majority of modern Christians teach or even are aware of, yet they are restored to LDS theology in versions that parallel early Judeo-Christian descriptions.
When one discusses the early Judeo-Christian tradition of Christ’s decensus into Hell, most protestant movements do not have any detail or depth to this doctrine, certainly nothing as detailed as the early judeo-christians possessed. Yet LDS theology contains a discretely accurate version of this tradition.
As we continue to recover and discover and analyze vast and detailed early Judeo-Christian libraries and texts, it will continue to change our base assumptions and paradigms regarding Early Judeo-Christian beliefs. The scholars are adopting the new base theory regarding the Henotheism of per-exilic Jews. This new paradigm of the scholars is a parallel to that of LDS theology. The new accepted base theory regarding the council of “gods” (small “g”
that is causing so much excitement and illumination among scholars of Early Ugaritic/Judaic history is wonderful and it is creating historical connections in many different direction. It is also a parallel to the restoration of the LDS model. This new and vast discoveries of early textual data is funneling these scholars into directions that are friendly to LDS theology that is almost 200 years old.Like many others who have adopted LDS theology, I have considered other theories as to where and how Joseph Smith could possibly have developed a mature and detailed ancient theology and detailed traditions that so closely paralleled relatively unknown and obscure early Judeo-Christian traditions and theologies in so many ways in some manner other than revelation. I was unable to do it then and am unable to do so now. The sheer magnitude of the historical task of doing this is difficult to explain. My examples are merely broad strokes of large base themes. Often the details underlying these themes are even more impressive historically.
It’s as though the panama canal appeared overnight and a man standing there with a shovel claims to have dug it. If someone counters, “No, he had a friend helping him!”, it still doesn’t explain the impossibility of what was done, whether it was two people or a hundred who are involved.
To me, Historically, it feels like the young Joseph Smith did something similar. Joseph Smith appears on the scene with a mature, detailed, version of multiple early judeo-christian theology with multiple parallels to early Christianity which, in his age, disagreed with the majority of the Christian Movement, but which , in reality, truly were correct parallels to early Judeo-Christian doctrines and traditions.
Even if I theorize : “he stole it from someone else”, this doesn’t solve anything because it simply transfers to another person what is still impossible. If I say that this teenager from the early 1800s amassed a group of eclectic scholars who knew traditions and doctrines that only a handful of scholars in that age knew, still, I am left trying to explain the multiple inconsistencies, increasing improbabilities, and problems that each new theory creates, (including how these scholars themselves knew texts and data that had not yet been discovered). My point is, that every theory I considered is even less likely and involves as many or more improbabilities than the theory the LDS claim. That is, that Joseph Smith received this mature and detailed model of Early Christian Base theology through revelation as a source.
There are other reasons why I believe Joseph Smith received based doctrines by revelation, but, for me, the vast amount of the earliest sacred judeo-christian texts feels like they are a vast source of fairly objective textual data that serves as a reference for what early Judeo-Christians believed and the later texts (i.e. 150 c.e. and beyond) become increasingly good data as to the evolutions and changes that took place among the various christian movements.
Watchmen / Mestemia, Good luck in your journeys
Clear
φυτζτωσενε / futztwsene
Last edited:
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
As a Mormon, of course you think it's silly -- but it isn't. LDS sources are trying to proe something, non-LDS are just showing what is there, that is it.