Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[ayani]

I totally agree. I'd like to just be considered another denomination of Christianity, but other Christians seem to have a problem with that.

you guys are definitely Christian. i still don't get how there's much debate about that.

hey, in the end it's their problem, not yours.

 

[doppelganger]

hey, in the end it's their problem, not yours.

Precisely. Why should Mormons care if other "Christians" consider Mormons "Christian" or not?

 

[doppelganger]

King James English was the language of Christian worship in 1827 America. (Source: Story of US, Volume 2)

If you're reading a text written in King James English, like the King James Bible, some old hymn or prayerbook, that would make sense. But translating some text from a foreign language into English, you would not use King James English in New York in 1827. For starters, you'd have to know all the grammatical rules and conventions of King James English in order to write original compositions in such a language - while you wouldn't need to know these just to read a work originally written in King James English.

For the record, the purpose of my debate was definitely NOT to convice anyone to accept the Book of Mormon as true.

This has been a public service announcement, paid for by Mr. and Mrs Working Stiff.

I suggest you tell that to Comprehend. You have the wrong audience in me.

 

[ayani]

Katz : i can understand the usefulness of detail and wholeness from a Christian perspective, especially given the long and many-branched history of the religion as far as movements and churches.

and if your church gives you answers and peace and draws you nearer to God, that is a good thing.
where you see wholeness and completion of a wider Christian picture, i see an unnecessarily detailed and precise cosmology that refers back to ideas and structures of religious thought that i do not embrace or consider true. still...

29:44-46

 

[Polaris]

For starters, you'd have to know all the grammatical rules and conventions of King James English in order to write original compositions in such a language - while you wouldn't need to know these just to read a work originally written in King James English.

I disagree. You don't have to formally know and master all the grammatical rules and conventions to compose or speak in a given language. We are living proof of that. 12 year olds can speak pretty good English not because they have some formal mastery of the rules of the language but because they speak what sounds correct based on what they're used to hearing.

A similar argument could be made for Joseph. He was familiar enough with the KJV language that he could comfortably converse in it.

 

[doppelganger]

:sad4:

Don't you think my proposed scorekeeping would avoid it being a waste of time? I really thought that would help keep it fair.

No. The value and meaning of evidence is determined to a large extent by the purposes of the person perceiving it. The scorekeeping would still be subject to this underlying problem. You'll be naturally inclined to interpret each 'point' in a manner favorable to your belief system. The "Creationism" "Trinity" and "Global Warming" debates are good examples of why this sort of thing is pointless.

 

[doppelganger]

In that case, I'd love to hear about it.

Go to the bookstore.

 

[doppelganger]

A similar argument could be made for Joseph. He was familiar enough with the KJV language that he could comfortably converse in it.

Regardless Smith was trying to make it sound like the KJV of the Bible. At best, then, the words would have to be Smith's interpretation of something rather than "God" telling him what to write, which goes back to my original point in bringing it up, which is that it is silly to think that these are the words of "God."

 

[doppelganger]

Allrighty then. I though you might be the type who liked a good debate. My mistake.

That wouldn't be a good debate. I've read arguments about this evidence numerous times before. I think it is every bit as preposterous and contorted as what the "Creationists" deal in, and there's no convincing those who believe in it otherwise. So it's not a "good debate" but rather a pointless waste of time.

 

[Polaris]

The "Creationism" "Trinity" and "Global Warming" debates are good examples of why this sort of thing is pointless.

What is the purpose of debate then?

Because the Creation, Trinity, and Global Warming can't be proven, they are debateable topics. True a debate isn't going to prove anything concerning the matter, but in the process of debate we can learn, or help others learn, the strengths for each side of the argument and place ourselves, and others, in a better position to make up our own mind. Isn't that the point of debate? Plus I find a good respectful debate to be fun and challenging.

 

[doppelganger]

What is the purpose of debate then?

When there is an emotional investment there's not much point. Not enough to make dredging through the same tired old arguments interesting enough to bother.

 

[Polaris]

Regardless Smith was trying to make it sound like the KJV of the Bible. At best, then, the words would have to be Smith's interpretation of something rather than "God" telling him what to write, which goes back to my original point in bringing it up, which is that it is silly to think that these are the words of "God."

I don't think Joseph was necessarily trying to make it sound like the KJV, I think he was simply using the language of scripture that he was familiar with.

We don't claim that the exact words are necessarily the words of God, as long as the teachings and prinicples are Gods, the exact language used to convey them is irrelevant.

 

[Polaris]

When there is an emotional investment there's not much point. Not enough to make dredging through the same tired old arguments interesting enough to bother.

When is there ever a debate without some amount of emotional investment? That's what makes a debate a debate there is a certain amount of passion from each of the participants.

 

[doppelganger]

With all due respect, there is nothing worth debating in the idea that the native inhabitants of North and South America are the descendants of a missing Jewish tribe that moved to the western hemisphere in 600 BCE, who also built huge cities full of Jewish descendants leaving no archaeological or anthropological evidence behind.

Sorry . . . if that story is considered a credible possibility to you, then so be it . . . but I don't think there's any point to debating it with you.

 

[Polaris]

With all due respect, there is nothing worth debating in the idea that the native inhabitants of North and South America are the descendants of a missing Jewish tribe that moved to the western hemisphere in 600 BCE, who also built huge cities full of Jewish descendants leaving no archaeological or anthropological evidence behind.

Nothing worth debating? That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion and you don't have to participate. Though your statement that there is "no archaological or anthropological evidence" is flat out wrong. Also we don't claim that ALL North and South American natives are the descendents of the Lamanites.

All we claim is that there was a people who came over to the America's, led by a prophet of God, who lived somewhere in this Western Hemisphere. They believed in and anticipated the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and he infact did visit them shortly after his resurrection. While some Mormons speculate where they might have lived and how their lineage has unfolded, the bottom line is we simply don't know for sure. We don't know where they lived, how large their domain extended, or in what form their existance continued after 400 AD. So your exaggerated claims are just that -- exaggerated.

 

[MomtoFour]

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?

First, am I the only one that has an issue with the idea that no good fruit can come from a corrupt tree? I have always found this scripture troubling. After all, what's the saying? Even Mussolini made the trains run on time?

Second, I don't see the fruits of Joseph Smith as being particularly good. In fact, I think polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith was a very bad thing.

I vote Not a True Prophet.

 

[Polaris]

First, am I the only one that has an issue with the idea that no good fruit can come from a corrupt tree? I have always found this scripture troubling. After all, what's the saying? Even Mussolini made the trains run on time?

I think Christ referred to a more comprehensive perspective. Look at the whole body of work to make a judegement.

Second, I don't see the fruits of Joseph Smith as being particularly good. In fact, I think polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith was a very bad thing.

That's an extremely narrow and selective piece with which to judge (see my statement above). Also if that's your judging criteria then Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses and several other would also be eliminated from prophethood.

 

[SoyLeche]

With all due respect, there is nothing worth debating in the idea that the native inhabitants of North and South America are the descendants of a missing Jewish tribe that moved to the western hemisphere in 600 BCE, who also built huge cities full of Jewish descendants leaving no archaeological or anthropological evidence behind.

Sorry . . . if that story is considered a credible possibility to you, then so be it . . . but I don't think there's any point to debating it with you.

Well, if you want to go for the straw man (granted, a lot of people believe the straw man, but...)

 

[KingM]

Right, Mormons are in full retreat from the claim that Jews settled the Americas and were their "principal inhabitants." Genetic, linguistic, and archeological evidence has punctured that theory. The fall-back is that the Book of Mormon refers only to a very small group of people.

 

[Polaris]

Right, Mormons are in full retreat from the claim that Jews settled the Americas and were their "principal inhabitants." Genetic, linguistic, and archeological evidence has punctured that theory. The fall-back is that the Book of Mormon refers only to a very small group of people.

Correction: Many Mormons believe that the Lamanites are the "principal ancestors" to the American Indians. If you're going to quote us please do so accurately

Genetic, linguistic, and archeological evidence hasn't done much to advance either side of the argument.

The fact is we don't know where the Lamanites settled, which directions they dispersed, how many Lamanites existed, what form of language they spoke, and who if anyone they encountered and mixed with. Without that information its hard to find any evidence that sheds much light on either side.