Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[madhatter85]

I'm not critical of your faith. I'm critical of the way that faith is acted out before the rest of us, because it assumes a certain superiority on your part, that I think does not play out well on God's playground.

We never assume or make statements that put any of us above anyone else. Each of God's children have the same potential and those blessings are available to all men women and choldren regardless of circumstance. Yes, we believe the truth has been restored through God's prophet Joseph Smith. did we say all other churches are beneath us? no. if that were the case why would there be so many examples of us helping out other churches in need, and giving thier leaders award ceremonies for kindness or humanitarian efforts.

We don't have a Pope that goes around callign other churches "defective" and issue a document stating that we are the only church with the "credentials for salvation" like some other churches do.

A question was asked by a Mormon. I answered the question, and tried to explain why I answered the way I did. I don't believe that Smith was a prophet, and you all now know why. If you want to believe that he was, that's your business. I don't make any bones about the fact that I refrain from judging you based upon what you believe. I'm glad you have something that works for you. it doesn't work for me, or for others. It doesn't have to.

Wrong, you do judge us, i have seen it it plenty of your posts. the gospel works for eveyone nomatter where you are at in your life, geography or situations, it works for everybody. the reality is you don't want it to work for you, you don't want to try it, you feel it has too many restrictions or you have to give too much of your time or service. whatever your reason may be, it's not that it "doesn't work for you" it's that "you don't want it to work for you"

These questions get asked in a debate forum, and then someone calls foul, because they don't like the answers they receive from people who believe differently than they do. It's ridiculous.

yes, it is rediculous.

Then the wagons get circled. Because we don't believe, we're not part of the "real" Church??? We don't have any authority in God's kingdom? You want to play in the Christian sandbox? I say, "come on in! Bring a bucket!" But then, you attempt to hijack the sandbox. This is nothing more than spiritual bullying, and I don't have to like it, or honor it. And my POV has nothing to do with Mormonism. I'll be more than happy to take this same stance against anyone who claims spiritual exclusivity, regardless of what they choose to call themselves.

The Catholic Church claims spiritual exclusivity, the Pope issued a document ealrier this year trying to flex his decrepit muscles at the world trying to re-affirm themselves as the "only true church" with exclusive "credentials for salvation". get off your own soapbox before calling out someone else.

It is possible to love someone and not accept ill behavior.

very true, i agree with you here, this is how god is, he hates his children's behavior but he still loves his children nomatter what.

 

[madhatter85]

That's ridiculous.

I know plenty of people who know a lot about the LDS church and have simply decided it's not for them. That doesn't make them anti.

wrong, you know as much as I do, that they don't know enough about it in this case.

 

[madhatter85]

I'm not basing my belief that Smith was/is a fraud on the NT, Only that if I was still in Church of England, that would my take. What I'm saying is, by the holy texts of other religions, Smith is a false prophet. What don't you undertsand about that ? I haven't had such a good laugh either in awhile, from your rather arrogant reply.

I don't buy that BOM, because as I've repeatedly said, it has zero veracity in the real world.

Melissa

Call it what you want, you are still being hypocritical with your statements, how can you even try to argue a point when you don't hold that stance anymore?

 

[Bishka]

wrong, you know as much as I do, that they don't know enough about it in this case.

You can't be serious can you? :sarcastic

 

[nutshell]

wrong, you know as much as I do, that they don't know enough about it in this case.

Wrong - they know enough and it's not for them. That doesn't make them anti.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto:

I think these are the facts you're looking for (however, they are not the "facts" that convince one whether the BoM is true or not):

Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

That's a lot of stuff. Would you like to pick a particular claim to discuss, or shall I?

 

[sojourner]

We never assume or make statements that put any of us above anyone else.

You assume that no one else has the truth. You assume that no one else carries any God-given authority to act in God's Name.

if that were the case why would there be so many examples of us helping out other churches in need, and giving thier leaders award ceremonies for kindness or humanitarian efforts.

You can help out anyone in need, without them being a valid member of a valid church. You can give awards without them being a valid member of a valid church. Your humanitarian kindness isn't at issue here. What is at issue is your ecclesial exclusivity.

We don't have a Pope that goes around callign other churches "defective" and issue a document stating that we are the only church with the "credentials for salvation" like some other churches do.

And that is just as outrageous to me.

Wrong, you do judge us, i have seen it it plenty of your posts. the gospel works for eveyone nomatter where you are at in your life, geography or situations, it works for everybody. the reality is you don't want it to work for you, you don't want to try it, you feel it has too many restrictions or you have to give too much of your time or service. whatever your reason may be, it's not that it "doesn't work for you" it's that "you don't want it to work for you"

We're not talking about the Gospel here. We're talking about your particular take on the Gospel. I understand that my take is different than yours. Mine works for me -- yours works for you. The difference is that I don't make statments, as you just did here, intimating that the gospel you have taken to heart isn't truth. The Gospel works just fine for me -- it always has. I trust the Gospel works fine for you, too.

The Catholic Church claims spiritual exclusivity, the Pope issued a document ealrier this year trying to flex his decrepit muscles at the world trying to re-affirm themselves as the "only true church" with exclusive "credentials for salvation". get off your own soapbox before calling out someone else.

You seem to lack understanding that I am not Roman Catholic. I take great issue with what the Pope is doing right now. It's wrong, in my opinion. The fact that I think they have a preponderance of Christian Tradition on their side notwithstanding.

I have nothing against the Mormon faith, per se. What I have problems with is the exclusivity I hear time and again. If y'all want to believe that Smith is a prophet, go right ahead! Doesn't upset me one little bit. But, by the same token, no one should become upset when I say that I don't believe it for myself.

 

[Autodidact]

don't kid yourself. no matter if you had overwhelming evidence or even if you were able to hold the golden plates in your hands and flip through the pages you wouldn't believe it any more than you do now.

That mind-reading ability must be nifty. You don't know anything about what I think or would think, and it's insulting and offensive for you to suggest that if you presented evidence, I would not be persuaded by it. Here, let's try: you present persuasive evidence that anything in the BoM is true, like archeological discoveries that confirm Nephite immigration to the new world, or confirmation that there is such a thing as "Reformed Egyptian" or that Joseph Smith knew how to translate it, or DNA evidence that American Indians descended from Near East immigrants, or even the evidence of where the Hill Cumorah is, and let's see how convinced I am. If you have it, that is.

and exactly what feelings regarding the book of mormon and joseph smith do you have? not logic rationalization, i mean true hard feelings, emotion? most likely you don't have any because you haven't asked for confirmation of it. if you had emotions regarding it you would be like melissa who is obviously anti-mormon.

Amusement. Boredom. Amazement that anyone believes it. Anger that such a obvious con succeeded in fooling so many people. Those are the main ones that come to mind.

there are 3 types of people in this world in regards to the LDS church. those who are members, those who don't know much about it, and those who are anti-mormon.

Really? No one in the entire world is neutral? No one is just tolerant of various religious beliefs? How do you know this? Are there polls? Have you taken a poll here?

you can say "i don't care one way or another" but in reality, you either believe it or you don't. and if you don't believe it, or don't want to even hear it, you are anti-mormon, even if you don't openly slander us, still anti-mormon. other than that you haven't learned what exactly we believe, which would put you under the "don't know much about it."

Well count me anti-Mormon then. Also anti-Christian and anti-Islam, as well as anti-Thor, anti-Zeus and anti-Isis and Kuan Yin, because I don't believe any of them. I'm anti a few thousand other Gods and Goddesses as well, you?

 

[nutshell]

That's a lot of stuff. Would you like to pick a particular claim to discuss, or shall I?

Go for it. I confess there are alternative explanations to what Lindsay suggests so we might be in agreement on some.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., I pick something nice and large, buildings. Specifically,

Nephi came to the New World and soon built a temple after the manner of Solomon's temple, apparently indicating that the structure was similar. Temples were important to the Nephites, who had temples in several locations (see 2 Nephi 5:16; Jacob 1:17; Mosiah 1:18; Alma 10:2; 3 Nephi 11:1). The Lamanites also had temples, probably based on Nephi's model (Alma 23:2; Alma 26:29). Is there any evidence of ancient Americans building temples? Of course there is--and it's right in the region that most LDS scholars agree is the only plausible geographical setting for the Book of Mormon, southern Mexico and Central America (Mesoamerica), as shown, for example, in John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Did they build temples in Book of Mormon times? Yes. But do the temples that we find in that region have any resemblance at all to Solomon's temple or to Jewish temple practice? The answer again is yes. Sorenson explains in a speech he gave, "The Book of Mormon in Ancient America":

[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Mesoamerican temples had an entrance with two pillars standing in the front on either side of the doorway and they bore no weight. They were just standing pillars that ended in a top. That's exactly the same as for the Temple of Solomon, where there were two pillars and their names are given in the account about the construction of that temple. The form of the temple in Mesoamerica--what are thought to be temples, anyway--... is similar to descriptions of the Temple of Solomon. The emphasis at the Temple of Solomon was not on the structure, that is the enclosed space inside. Worshipers did not go inside. A priest occasionally went inside, but the large majority operated, carried on their sacrifices, did their worship outside in the court. The Mormon equivalent would be that you'd hold meetings on Temple Square but not inside a tabernacle or the temple. That is exactly the case also with the Mesoamerican temples. Sacrifices were made on altars that look very Jewish ... and those were in front of temples; those were near temples. And many of the concepts that the Spaniards reported associated with the temples ... the idea of multiple heavens, communication with heaven, sacrifice, the occasions for sacrifice, [etc.] ... is similar in Mesoamerica as in the Near East.[/SIZE][/FONT]​

Now if I follow him, he's saying that the Nephites occupied Southern Mexico and Central America, and built large temples there. (note that this is the opposite of what other Mormon apologists said in this thread, which is that we have no way of knowing where the Nephites lived.) Now I'm sure you'll agree that it's not enough to find some temples there that resemble in some way ancient Near East temples, but if that's the case, then we should expect to find archeological evidence, among those people, of:
metallurgy, including smelting gold, silver, iron, brass and steel.
agriculture, including wheat, barley, grapes and figs,
herding, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses,
wheeled vehicles, specifically horse-led chariots
some kind of egyptian writing
battles with swords and shields, bows and arrows,
DNA resemblance between these people and Semitic people,
synagogues,
and many others.

And we don't. None. Zip. Of any of those things. In fact, if there's one thing we know pretty clearly, it's that the people described in the Book of Mormon never lived in Central America.

15 And I did teach my people to abuild buildings, and to bwork in all cmanner of wood, and of diron, and of copper, and of ebrass, and of steel, and of fgold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. 16 And I, Nephi, did abuild a btemple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of cSolomon save it were not built of so many dprecious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s etemple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of fSolomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

So, is there, anywhere in MesoAmerica, the ruins of a Temple like unto Solomon's, which took thousands of people years to build? No, there is not. If you think you can name a specific archeological ruin anywhere in MesoAmerica that is Nephite or Lamanite in origin, please do so.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Everyone is getting a little feisty over here.

 

[Smoke]

Everyone is getting a little feisty over here.

831 posts on, your powers of observation are stunning.

 

[madhatter85]

You assume that no one else has the truth. You assume that no one else carries any God-given authority to act in God's Name.

We believe you do have some truths, we believe in more truths than other chrisitians. and yes, the power to act in God's name was taken from the earth and it says so in Biblical prophesies.

You can help out anyone in need, without them being a valid member of a valid church. You can give awards without them being a valid member of a valid church. Your humanitarian kindness isn't at issue here. What is at issue is your ecclesial exclusivity.

every worthy man in our church holds the same priesthood authority that the prophets of the old testament, and the apostles of the New testament held. and the same Pristhood every worthy man holds in the church is the same priesthood the current presidents of the church hold. those blessings and privledges are extended to every worthy man in the church. we are not exclusive, we are only exclusive to worthiness and moral cleanliness and a willingness to serve others. Otherwise you are not worthy to act in God's name, how can you be if you do things that are contrary to christ's gospel?

We're not talking about the Gospel here. We're talking about your particular take on the Gospel. I understand that my take is different than yours. Mine works for me -- yours works for you. The difference is that I don't make statments, as you just did here, intimating that the gospel you have taken to heart isn't truth. The Gospel works just fine for me -- it always has. I trust the Gospel works fine for you, too.

Sorry to burst your bubble, It's not "our particular take" on the gospel, It is The Gospel of Jesus chrsit, fully restored. and not restored because someone made up a book and had a good idea, but because God himself appeard with Christ and restored the true foundations of his Church, and also restored the priesthood authority to perform eternal marriages. I work just fine for the gospel, the gospel truths do not change because it fits people, people have to conform to it, that's how it works.

You seem to lack understanding that I am not Roman Catholic. I take great issue with what the Pope is doing right now. It's wrong, in my opinion. The fact that I think they have a preponderance of Christian Tradition on their side notwithstanding.

we can agree on this, the current Pope is causing a huge ruckus in the vatican with what he is sayign and doing.

 

[Popeyesays]

Actually there are four types of people:
Those who are mormons and accept
Those who don't know engouh about it to accept or refuse it
Those who do know and choose not to believe
Those who are anti-mormon just because.

I am among those who know a lot of it and choose to regard it as too flawed to accept.

Why? I cannot believe in a religion that demands me to consider that God created Order from Chaos but not Order from Nothing. God that we worship is either the Creator or He isn't in my opinion.

I think Joseph Smith was hookied into spiritual happenings going on around him but never had a real grasp on those happenings, he created the Book of Mormon from his own imagination and fancy. He did not receive a Revelation direct from God.

The Church of God is a progressive thing, it did not need a Christian restoration it needed a New Revelation based on the old, but independent -- a spiritiual jump forward, not back.

No offense intended, just the way I reasoned through it . . . . .

Regards,

Scott

 

[Pastor ROC]

Sorry to burst your bubble, It's not "our particular take" on the gospel, It is The Gospel of Jesus chrsit, fully restored. and not restored because someone made up a book and had a good idea, but because God himself appeard with Christ and restored the true foundations of his Church, and also restored the priesthood authority to perform eternal marriages. I work just fine for the gospel, the gospel truths do not change because it fits people, people have to conform to it, that's how it works.

God Himself appeared with Christ? Interesting. I don't recall anything about that being found in the Bible. Of course, I don't believe in "another testament" either.
Yes, people had begun to teach false doctrines. People do that today, all the time. This is why Paul instructed Timothy to stay where he was and take care of the problem. This was under control.
2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I realize that the LDS use these Scripture references in an attempt to lend credibility to Joseph Smith as being a prophet and "the one" who restored the "true church". However what these verses are saying is that no prophecy is to be privately or independently interpreted (cf. the false teachers in 3:16). The Holy Spirit, Scripture itself and the church should be included in the interpretative process.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Holy Spirit, Scripture itself and the church should be included in the interpretative process.

If that were true, there would be no Protestants in the West, only Catholics.

Interestingly enough, the Eastern Church actually believes this and has never had a Reformation.

 

[Pastor ROC]

Are you speaking of the Eastern Orthodox church?

 

[nutshell]

O.K., I pick something nice and large, buildings. Specifically, Now if I follow him, he's saying that the Nephites occupied Southern Mexico and Central America, and built large temples there. (note that this is the opposite of what other Mormon apologists said in this thread, which is that we have no way of knowing where the Nephites lived.)

I think its wrong to assume the temples were large and nowhere does it indicate such. When Nephi says it was after the manner of Soloman I take that to mean they were similar, but not the same. In geometry terms, this means the shape may have been the same, but not the size.

Also, you're right. Other apologists have said things opposite of Lindsay. Lets not forget, none of this is settled and many theories are allowed - just as there are different theories of evolution.

Now I'm sure you'll agree that it's not enough to find some temples there that resemble in some way ancient Near East temples, but if that's the case, then we should expect to find archeological evidence, among those people, of:
metallurgy, including smelting gold, silver, iron, brass and steel.
agriculture, including wheat, barley, grapes and figs,
herding, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses,
wheeled vehicles, specifically horse-led chariots
some kind of egyptian writing
battles with swords and shields, bows and arrows,
DNA resemblance between these people and Semitic people,
synagogues,
and many others.

And we don't. None. Zip. Of any of those things. In fact, if there's one thing we know pretty clearly, it's that the people described in the Book of Mormon never lived in Central America.

15 And I did teach my people to abuild buildings, and to bwork in all cmanner of wood, and of diron, and of copper, and of ebrass, and of steel, and of fgold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. 16 And I, Nephi, did abuild a btemple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of cSolomon save it were not built of so many dprecious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s etemple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of fSolomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

So, is there, anywhere in MesoAmerica, the ruins of a Temple like unto Solomon's, which took thousands of people years to build? No, there is not. If you think you can name a specific archeological ruin anywhere in MesoAmerica that is Nephite or Lamanite in origin, please do so.

I believe you're lumping things together - lets take these one by one. As for the issue you quoted from Lindsay's site - are there temples comparable to that of the Near East? The answer is Yes.

Which of the things you've listed would you like to tackle next?

 

[cardero]

Madhatter85 writes: We believe you do have some truths, we believe in more truths than other chrisitians. and yes, the power to act in God's name was taken from the earth and it says so in Biblical prophesies.

I’m not sure that I understand what your describing here. What exactly is the understanding that you are offering?

 

[nutshell]

I’m not sure that I understand what your describing here. What exactly is the understanding that you are offering?

I think he's saying we have the priesthood and you don't so na na na na na---