Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[yoda89]

I believe he was a prophet of God.

Why and how?

 

[Janadele]

I also believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. On reading The Book of Mormon and praying in the name of Jesus Christ for an answer as to the truthfulness I was overwhelmed with knowledge, and a certainty that this was the word of God. Since then answers have been given as to our existence from the beginning of time as an Intelligence, which was then born into a Spiritual body, which grew in knowledge and wisdom to maturity, then born into mortality as a trial to be judged and receive the consequences of choices as we strive to progress through the Eternities. Knowing who we are, where we came from, and where we are going is an empowering inspiration. The Pearl of Great Price is my favourite Scripture. Find more answers at LDS.org

 

[Quirkybird]

Smith was a very nasty piece of work that is for sure!

 

[gilligan8914]

I also believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. On reading The Book of Mormon and praying in the name of Jesus Christ for an answer as to the truthfulness I was overwhelmed with knowledge, and a certainty that this was the word of God. Since then answers have been given as to our existence from the beginning of time as an Intelligence, which was then born into a Spiritual body, which grew in knowledge and wisdom to maturity, then born into mortality as a trial to be judged and receive the consequences of choices as we strive to progress through the Eternities. Knowing who we are, where we came from, and where we are going is an empowering inspiration. The Pearl of Great Price is my favourite Scripture. Find more answers at LDS.org

I read half of the book of Mormon, and I found it to be boring, amateurish, repetitive and very non-inspiring. Probably the exact characteristics of Joseph Smith. Maybe the seer-stone which he used to tell fortunes with didn't translate the fabled gold plates exactly right.

 

[Katzpur]

I read half of the book of Mormon, and I found it to be boring, amateurish, repetitive and very non-inspiring.

Nah, I think it was probably just over your head. Most religions' holy scriptures aren't exactly riviting reads. The Book of Mormon is definitely not a "can't put it down" kind of book, but "amateurish" it's not.

 

[Levite]

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?

Just out of curiosity, to my understanding, various parts or elements of the Book of Mormon are supposed to be translated from Hebrew, or preserve lore of ancient Israelites.

So how come all the names and place-names and such that it uses appear to be nonsense words, and not Hebrew? I know Hebrew and Aramaic, and in fact, I have degrees in Jewish Studies and Rabbinic Literature, and I can definitely tell you, that stuff in neither Hebrew nor Aramaic in origins, unless it has been misunderstood and twisted beyond all ken. Even the awful transliterations that the Vulgate and the King James use can almost always readily be recognized for what their Hebrew or Aramic originals were, so it's not just a phenomenon of translation.

Even if I were open to the idea of Joseph Smith being a prophet-- which I am not, of course, being a Jew-- that would seem to cast more than a little suspicion on his documents, to my mind.

How do Mormons reconcile this?

 

[Katzpur]

Just out of curiosity, to my understanding, various parts or elements of the Book of Mormon are supposed to be translated from Hebrew, or preserve lore of ancient Israelites.

So how come all the names and place-names and such that it uses appear to be nonsense words, and not Hebrew? I know Hebrew and Aramaic, and in fact, I have degrees in Jewish Studies and Rabbinic Literature, and I can definitely tell you, that stuff in neither Hebrew nor Aramaic in origins, unless it has been misunderstood and twisted beyond all ken. Even the awful transliterations that the Vulgate and the King James use can almost always readily be recognized for what their Hebrew or Aramic originals were, so it's not just a phenomenon of translation.

Even if I were open to the idea of Joseph Smith being a prophet-- which I am not, of course, being a Jew-- that would seem to cast more than a little suspicion on his documents, to my mind.

How do Mormons reconcile this?

Would you settle for a link? I don't generally go this route, but there's just too much stuff for me to sit down and type up.

Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon

Also, there are numerous Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon (syntax, literary devices, linguistic elements, etc.) that I find quite compelling.

 

[Levite]

Would you settle for a link? I don't generally go this route, but there's just too much stuff for me to sit down and type up.

Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon

Also, there are numerous Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon (syntax, literary devices, linguistic elements, etc.) that I find quite compelling.

First of all, this article is by a Mormon scholar, citing almost exclusively other Mormon scholars, published by an institute whose sole purpose is Mormon apologetics. This does not, to my mind, bode well for the reliability of it.

Second of all, I find the work therein extremely questionable. With one or two potential exceptions, he is either relying on the names used in the Book of Mormon that are also used in the Hebrew Scriptures, Apocrypha, and NT, or is relying on the names being formed from roots that do exist in the Hebrew or Aramaic languages, while pointedly ignoring the fact that the particular constructions of these roots do not exist anywhere else in the record of Hebrew/Aramaic literature in those forms or usages.

An example being an alleged place name, Cumorah. This, he tells us, is a transliteration of a Hebrew word כמורה, though he incorrectly says it would be pronounced kemorah, whereas it actually would be kemurah. But more importantly, the root word he alleges is being used here, komer, is rare in Biblical Hebrew. It is used only three times in the entire Tanach: once in 2 Kings, once in Hosea, once in Zephaniah, all three times found in the plural form komarim. It is an extremely specific word, also. Though the author of this article claims komer merely means "priest," and therefore kemurah (an infinitive/noun form) means "priesthood," the word komer is actually specific to priests of idolatrous cults. It does not change that usage until well into the Common Era, when it ceases to be used of idolatrous priests, and begins to be used in reference to Christian priests (who are still called komarim in Hebrew today). The point, though, is not merely that he misses the nuance of the root, but that the word simply does not exist in the infinitive/noun construction he gives, "kemurah." We have no record of that construction ever being used in Biblical or Rabbinic Hebrew. In the one occasion I know of an infinitive/noun form of the word komer being used (in a Medieval responsum, in reference to Christian priests), the form given is komariyut. So we have an exceedingly rare word, in a form never otherwise used, with a very peculiar nuance to be used for a place name, being noted as the name of a place not mentioned in any other work in the record of Hebrew/Aramaic literature.

Also, the author of this piece doesn't even really deal with names given in the Book of Mormon which are parts of words or names otherwise mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures or Apocrypha, but they are presented as independent names in the Book of Mormon despite the fact that their constructions are utterly bizarre for stand-alone usage, or are parts of wordplay which is being decontextualized and presented as normal usage, apparently from ignorance of the usage.

An individual, for example, allegedly named Lehi, which the author of this piece points out is an extant place name in Judges 15. What the author fails to grasp is that the place in Judges (probably nicknamed Lechi, rather than actually named Lechi) is a pun: the word lechi means "cheek" or "jowl," and in Judges 15 Samson is depicted as taking vengeance for a Philistine raid at a place Lechi (which can also be read poetically as a raid which is a "slap in the face") by killing Philistines using the jawbone (lechi) of a donkey. The chapter in Judges is full of plays on words, and is likely meant to be a humorous narrative. But no one would actually name a person Lechi. It's probably not even a real place name, and it's definitely not a given name. Hebrew does not favor naming people after random body parts-- much like other languages-- and such a usage for the word is not only, again, completely unknown in all the rest of Hebrew/Aramaic literature, but it's ridiculous. Anyone who knows Hebrew and is familiar with how speakers or writers of Hebrew have used it would see such a usage as utterly peculiar and awkward.

And it basically goes downhill from there. I'm sorry, but this article is simply unconvincing. It looks very much like the work of someone very clever, trying creatively to make reason and sense out of nonsense.

 

[Katzpur]

First of all, this article is by a Mormon scholar, citing almost exclusively other Mormon scholars, published by an institute whose sole purpose is Mormon apologetics. This does not, to my mind, bode well for the reliability of it.

Yeah, I kind of figured you'd say that. I don't know that it matters a whole lot that the author is Mormon. Non-Mormons, as a rule, aren't particularly keen on publishing information that may appear to be pro-Mormon. Facts are facts, regardless of who names them.

I'm sorry, but this article is simply unconvincing. It looks very much like the work of someone very clever, trying creatively to make reason and sense out of nonsense.

Don't be sorry. I never asked you to be convinced. We simply disagree, that's all.

 

[gilligan8914]

Nah, I think it was probably just over your head. Most religions' holy scriptures aren't exactly riviting reads. The Book of Mormon is definitely not a "can't put it down" kind of book, but "amateurish" it's not.

The only thing over my head is my hair. And actually I'm bald. Try reading the Gospel Of Truth. LDS is considered by some to be a type of gnosticism. If you can understand the GOT then the Book Of Mormon is over my head.

 

[2ndpillar]

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).

God has already revealed his secrets, it is just that no one seems to understand them, due to time given for revelation (Dan 12:9), or hardness of heart.(Mt 13:13-16). As for Paul, the fruit of his tree is definitely not good. The "Christian" church is built on the foundations of Peter and Paul. Their fruit is truly rotten. A prime example being that the office of the Inquisition still exist today under a different name. Torture and burning heretics, saints, is not good fruit.

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).

What Yeshua taught was different from which you site. He taught that you should not call any man teacher, Father, or leader, because you are all brothers. (Mt 23:10) Isaiah 3:12, "those who guide you lead your astray"
1 John 2:27, "you do not need anyone to teach you"

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.

None of the false prophets quoted above match the description of the "ravenous wolf" as well as Paul. (Mt 7:15-26) (Gen 49:27)

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.

With the Holy Spirit as one's teacher, what does a brother need with a self professed apostle or prophet? (Mt 23:8)

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.

All is possible, but what is the truth that is restored? The Protestants tried to make a reformation, but kept the canon, dogmas, and doctrines of the Harlot church. What has the LDS done? Maybe she threw out the Songs of Solomon? I am not sure that is going to do it.

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.

Some of the fruits are good, but then again, there are some Catholic nuns who do good works also. It doesn't make their church, or its worship of graven images okay. We won't talk about graven images of birds:
2.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

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 is possible, but you haven't put forth any evidence. David Koresh was persecuted, and he was diligent also.

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.

I have considered Joseph Smith, but his message smacks of a different version of the "Christian" church. They still have the same mark of the beast as the "Christian" church.

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

By looking at the actions of his followers, I would have to say that his message is different than that of Yehsua.

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

I would be hesitant to call Joseph Smith evil, but included in the scope of Rev 13:14, whereas he is deceived to the extent as "those who dwell on the earth".

So where do you stand?

I think he has a nice organization, and if they only had the Truth, they might be able to do something with it. The time is short, for Joel 2:28 - Joel 3:3 is coming to fulfillment, in that Jerusalem has been restored, and the nations camped around her (Psalms 83), and all that is needed is the "kingdom" to be preached.( Mt 24:14) Using the outline of Mt 10:6-14, I am not thinking it is actually being done. At least not with power.

 

[gilligan8914]

I think he has a nice organization, and if they only had the Truth, they might be able to do something with it. The time is short, for Joel 2:28 - Joel 3:3 is coming to fulfillment, in that Jerusalem has been restored, and the nations camped around her (Psalms 83), and all that is needed is the "kingdom" to be preached.( Mt 24:14) Using the outline of Mt 10:6-14, I am not thinking it is actually being done. At least not with power.

You left out the part about marrying and baptizing long dead people, the nature of God ( King Follett Sermon), and "Manuscript, Found". However when speaking of the "fruit of the tree", I have never met a Mormon who was not a good sincere person. I would rather know a good sincere person than all the Benny Hinn's, Billy Grahams and all the Pat Robertsons in the world.

 

[jtartar]

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?

Polaris,
Since I have never met Joseph Smith, I do not pretend to know what kind of a person he was.
I know from a study of God's word that the Holy Bible IS the WORD of God, Isa 40:8, 1Pet 1:25, and that it was inspired by God's Holy Spirit, 2Tim 3:16,17, 2Pet 1:20,21. Jesus himself said that God's word is true, John 17:17.
The Bible tells us that if anyone even an angel out of heaven,says anything different than what the Holy Scriptures say, he is cursed. This is written twice, for emphasis, Gal 1:6-9.
Now, remember what is recorded at 2Tim 3:16,17, which says the scriptures are good for teaching, reproving, for SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT, so that the man is COMPLETELY EQUIPED for every good work. Why would we need other writings if the Bible COMPLETELY EQUIPS a person for EVERY GOOD WORK???
As for Joseph Smith, did he not claim to have seen twelve golden tablets, on which the words of the Mormon Bible were?? Of course no one has ever seen these tablets, so we must take his word for it.
My problem is; It means my everlasting life what course I take, Rom 14:10,12. I don't think I could trust a person's word about something so important, and especially when I have been warned by the writings in the Bible which I know is true.
Another point similar to yours is recorded at Deut 13:1-16.

 

[Nymphs]

He was a man. There are no prophets.

 

[Nakosis]

He was a man. There are no prophets.

Your posit, your burden of proof...

 

[Nymphs]

Your posit, your burden of proof...

Actually is is not. They (Mormons) claim he is a prophet, that is an extraordinary claim that requires some heavy, factual, extraordinary evidence. It isn't up to me to prove he isn't what he claims, it is up to them (those that believe) to prove he is what he claims.

 

[Nakosis]

Actually is is not. They (Mormons) claim he is a prophet, that is an extraordinary claim that requires some heavy, factual, extraordinary evidence. It isn't up to me to prove he isn't what he claims, it is up to them (those that believe) to prove he is what he claims.

Ok but what about other prophets?

You seemed to claim none exist?
And that would be the basis for denying Joseph Smith prophet status.

If you deny all prophets then to accept one in particular would take extraordinary convincing. For someone who accepts the existence of prophets already it wouldn't be extraordinary.

So you position yourself to to require extraordinary proof without first justifying the position.

Obviously a person can set the bar of proof so high they cannot be convinced of anything they don't want to be. It is not in all cases a justifiable position. If you cannot prove your position is justifiable then I don't why someone would expect that it is necessary to meet your burden of proof.

 

[Nymphs]

Ok but what about other prophets?

You seemed to claim none exist?
And that would be the basis for denying Joseph Smith prophet status.

If you deny all prophets then to accept one in particular would take extraordinary convincing. For someone who accepts the existence of prophets already it wouldn't be extraordinary.

So you position yourself to to require extraordinary proof without first justifying the position.

Obviously a person can set the bar of proof so high they cannot be convinced of anything they don't want to be. It is not in all cases a justifiable position. If you cannot prove your position is justifiable then I don't why someone would expect that it is necessary to meet your burden of proof.

No prophets. None at all. Zippo.

 

[Looncall]

I'm not making an argument. I'm expressing my opinion in response to a question.

In any case, why would I care whether Deep Shadow changes his mind? I assume he's invested emotionally in his faith and any such "debate" would be a waste of time, just like all such debates are. Moreover, since it's the OP that is proselytizing Mormonism, the question is not whether I can prove Smith dreamed it all up, but whether you can prove to my satisfaction otherwise. Trust me in saying that NO FACTUAL ASSERTION no matter how ridiculous you think it might seem can EVER be disproved. Not by me . . . not by you . . . not by anyone.



So did JRR Tolkien, L. Ron Hubbard, Baha'u'llah, Madonna and Lenny Bruce . . .

I sometimes wonder if Smith was trying on a joke, like the Sokal paper, and it just caught on. It's amazing to me the amount of rubbish people get attached to if one calls it religion.

 

[Nymphs]

It's amazing to me the amount of rubbish people get attached to if one calls it religion.

:yes:

That. Exactly.