Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Aqualung]

In the end, what LDS point to is not evidence, but feelings. Do you have warm, fuzzy feelings when you think about the church and read its scripture or bad feelings? It's not the evidence, but "the spirit" that "testifies."

This seems an extremely poor way to prove the truthfulness claims of something. It is subject to missing/erroneous information, wishful thinking, or the influence of a charismatic other.

Yes, but all you point to is the absence of such feelings. You just don't have a good feeling about all the humanitarian efforst they have produced or the prophesies made by the prophets because they aren't grand enough or exact enough. At least that's the way it seems in this thread.

 

[nutshell]

Wrong, the OP states: "The good fruits produced by this tree include a worldwide church [A Mormon "worldwide church" is quite a stretch; there are some pretty significant countries in which the church doesn't exist] that is active and dilligent in the preaching of salvation through Christ [and the Mormons declare that every other church is an abomination to God], the establishment of additional scripture that further clarifies the doctrines of the gospel [so-called scripture which has been shown to be a hoax], the providing of relief to the poor and the needy [big whoop, that's what you are supposed to do as a Christian, right?], and the rearing of families with strong moral values just to name a few." [Why is it assumed that Mormon moral values are the prefered values. I find some Mormon so-called moral values immoral.]

Wrong. That's not a definition of good fruits - it's an example of what good fruits might include.

 

[nutshell]

In the end, what LDS point to is not evidence, but feelings. Do you have warm, fuzzy feelings when you think about the church and read its scripture or bad feelings? It's not the evidence, but "the spirit" that "testifies."

This seems an extremely poor way to prove the truthfulness claims of something. It is subject to missing/erroneous information, wishful thinking, or the influence of a charismatic other.

I have never had a warm fuzzy feeling except when drinkin a mug of hot cocoa. Do you forget how Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ - it was by the Spirit of the Father. To deny the Spirit is to deny the very method God has given us to recognize Christ. You call such a way "poor" when it is your reliance on man that is actually such.

 

[DeepShadow]

I think the thing which weighs most heavily in terms of "fruits" is that the fruits of the Mormon revelation are not the fruits of Joseph Smith, but rather the fruits of Christ.

Wahooo!! Frubals!

In my estimation there is no revelation through Joseph Smith at all. He is not the instrument of Revelation direct from God, there is no authoirty in Joseph Smith that is not derived from Jesus and the Christian Revelation.

Interesting. While I don't share the entire framework with you, I think your comments are very insightful...and quite complimentary.

From what I know of Joseph Smith, I'd like to think he'd be quite gratified at the compliment as well.

 

[DeepShadow]

[so-called scripture which has been shown to be a hoax]

See, it's this kind of uninformed statement that keeps my debate challenge open. Just because someone has accepted my challenge doesn't mean I can't debate someone else on the same topic.

Bathsheba, would you accept a one-on-one debate about whether the Book of Mormon has been proven to be a hoax?

 

[Bathsheba]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Popeyesays
I think the thing which weighs most heavily in terms of "fruits" is that the fruits of the Mormon revelation are not the fruits of Joseph Smith, but rather the fruits of Christ.

Wahooo!! Frubals!

Interesting. While I don't share the entire framework with you, I think your comments are very insightful...and quite complimentary.

From what I know of Joseph Smith, I'd like to think he'd be quite gratified at the compliment as well.

From the OP:

"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 because you and Polaris are both Mormons doesn't mean you have to agree on these things. It does appear as though you have a difference of opinion, that's fine. If you want to do the frubal happy dance when somebody says "the fruits of the Mormon revelation are not the fruits of Joseph Smith, but rather the fruits of Christ", that's fine too. It just seems goofy to me that you change the meaning of what Jesus said here: "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 was the point of Jesus saying that if you are going now going to say that Jesus is responsible for the fruits when originally he referred to "ye shall know them by their fruits"? Is this one of those mystical backflips that only the people with peep stones can appreciate? Where do you stand, did Joseph produce good fruit or not? Because according to Polaris "All honest seekers of truth must at least consider with sincerity the ... fruits of the prophet Joseph Smith."

 

[nutshell]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Popeyesays
I think the thing which weighs most heavily in terms of "fruits" is that the fruits of the Mormon revelation are not the fruits of Joseph Smith, but rather the fruits of Christ.




From the OP:

"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 because you and Polaris are both Mormons doesn't mean you have to agree on these things. It does appear as though you have a difference of opinion, that's fine. If you want to do the frubal happy dance when somebody says "the fruits of the Mormon revelation are not the fruits of Joseph Smith, but rather the fruits of Christ", that's fine too. It just seems goofy to me that you change the meaning of what Jesus said here: "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 was the point of Jesus saying that if you are going now going to say that Jesus is responsible for the fruits when originally he referred to "ye shall know them by their fruits"? Is this one of those mystical backflips that only the people with peep stones can appreciate? Where do you stand, did Joseph produce good fruit or not? Because according to Polaris "All honest seekers of truth must at least consider with sincerity the ... fruits of the prophet Joseph Smith."

A person who produces good fruit does so because that person is an instrument of Christ and, ultimately, the fruit comes from Him. Not so hard.

 

[Bathsheba]

See, it's this kind of uninformed statement that keeps my debate challenge open. Just because someone has accepted my challenge doesn't mean I can't debate someone else on the same topic.

Bathsheba, would you accept a one-on-one debate about whether the Book of Mormon has been proven to be a hoax?

First you must read the book “A Course in Miracles” (see link below) and then pray to Allah asking Him if it is true (pray for at least 30 days). Then you must take a test so that I can confirm that you have read the book. Plus, you need to keep a journal of your prayers to Allah so that we can get a sense of your commitment to sincerely seeking the truth about the divinity of the book. For example, record everything Allah says to you in response to your prayers. When you have completed your prayer and study then you must accept a challenge to debate “A Course in Miracles” from me. After we have debated “A Course in Miracles” then I will then accept your challenge to debate the Book of Mormon. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Amazon.com: A Course in Miracles: Books

 

[DeepShadow]

Just because you and Polaris are both Mormons doesn't mean you have to agree on these things.

Thanks for your permission to disagree. I love Polaris, but I think the OP is skewed, as I indicated previously.

It just seems goofy to me that you change the meaning of what Jesus said here: "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).

Where did I change the meaning? Begging the question.

What was the point of Jesus saying that if you are going now going to say that Jesus is responsible for the fruits when originally he referred to "ye shall know them by their fruits"?

He also said that he is the vine, and we are the leaves. If that is so, our fruit is His fruit. No change in meaning. Need a peep stone for that?

Where do you stand, did Joseph produce good fruit or not?

Now who's offering an either-or fallacy? As someone who criticized the OP for being dualistic, you're doing it right back! The fruits of Joseph Smith are both good and evil, because he was a man. Many of his good fruits are actually the fruits of Christ working through him.

Because according to Polaris "All honest seekers of truth must at least consider with sincerity the ... fruits of the prophet Joseph Smith."

And you've already grasped that Polaris and I have some disagreements here...so what's the question?

 

[Bathsheba]

A person who produces good fruit does so because that person is an instrument of Christ and, ultimately, the fruit comes from Him. Not so hard.

You have completely missed the point of the original post.

Let me get this straight. Is it possible that I can produce good fruit? If so, ultimately does that good fruit come from Jesus? If so, what if I don't believe in Jesus, does Jesus still work through me? What if I donate all of my time and resources to feeding the poor (good fruit, right?) and absolutely reject jesus, Am I just an evil producer of good fruit? Or can jesus work with evil-doers to produce good fruit? If that is the case then it must get really tough to figure out who the true prophets of god are and who are the fakes. Oh wait a minute, we long stopped caring about the original question - how to spot a fake. All good works come from Jesus - Wahooo!! Frubals! Jumpin-Joseph-Frubal-Finalist-Yippee!

 

[DeepShadow]

First you must read the book “A Course in Miracles” (see link below) and then pray to Allah asking Him if it is true (pray for at least 30 days). Then you must take a test so that I can confirm that you have read the book.

Hogwash. You said that the Book of Mormon has been proven to be a hoax. I intend to refute that claim--the Book of Mormon has never been proven to by anything but a mystery--but in order to refute your claim I have to jump through all your hoops?

I'm not asking you to jump through any hoops to debate me. At the very least, show me where this evidence is that proves the book is a hoax. Maybe it's the DNA evidence...that confirms everything Hugh Nibley said in World of the Jaredites about how the Jaredites were of Asian extraction? Or how about the supposed lack of archaeological evidence--which is begging the question over and over again? C'mon, I'm dying for some genuinely new information. Surprise me.

Or if you don't want to debate, just don't say the book was proven to be a hoax. You are entitled to an opinion that it's a hoax, but if you say it's been proven, I'm going to ask for proof. And I'll probably do so in a way that avoids derailing the threads, which would be an invitation to debate.

 

[DeepShadow]

You have completely missed the point of the original post.

With all due respect, I don't think he's the one that's missed the point. For one thing, no one here ever said that all good works (fruits) come from Jesus.

All good works come from Jesus - Wahooo!! Frubals! Jumpin-Joseph-Frubal-Finalist-Yippee!

Except for you. I stand corrected.

 

[Bathsheba]

The fruits of Joseph Smith are both good and evil, because he was a man.

Specifically, what are the evil fruits produced by Smith?

 

[DeepShadow]

Specifically, what are the evil fruits produced by Smith?

Whaddya want, his biography? He had plenty of faults, some of which bore bitter fruit. The missing 116 page manuscript is a bitter fruit of Joseph's pride and his need to seek the approval of men over the approval of God--he said so himself. Many of his overbold words offended people who might otherwise have become allies--again, he said so himself. He trusted men like Sampson Avard, who used that trust to manipulate people in Joseph's name and corrupt parts of the church.

Could some of those faults be intermingled with early Mormonism so that it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff? Sure, but that's not my job. I turn to God for things like this, which is why I disagree with Polaris about making this an issue of objective scrutiny.

 

[Bathsheba]

Hogwash. You said that the Book of Mormon has been proven to be a hoax. I intend to refute that claim--the Book of Mormon has never been proven to by anything but a mystery--but in order to refute your claim I have to jump through all your hoops?

I'm not asking you to jump through any hoops to debate me. At the very least, show me where this evidence is that proves the book is a hoax. Maybe it's the DNA evidence...that confirms everything Hugh Nibley said in World of the Jaredites about how the Jaredites were of Asian extraction? Or how about the supposed lack of archaeological evidence--which is begging the question over and over again? C'mon, I'm dying for some genuinely new information. Surprise me.

Or if you don't want to debate, just don't say the book was proven to be a hoax. You are entitled to an opinion that it's a hoax, but if you say it's been proven, I'm going to ask for proof. And I'll probably do so in a way that avoids derailing the threads, which would be an invitation to debate.

Calm down sparky, you are going to have a coronary. I know you know the Book of Mormon is true. I know you know the Book of Mormon is the Jesus fruit of the loom. You got that burning your bosom, right? Let me ask you something, why do you need a debate when you KNOW it is true from the Holy Ghost? Doesn't Jesus teach you that each individual needs to fill their own lamp? Do you think a debate is going to fill my lamp with the oil I need? Do you care more about winning or letting your light shine? Did you go on a mission for the church? Did you argue with investigators the way you are arguing here? How do you invite the spirit when you get all up in somebody’s face with your "CHALLENGE".

 

[DeepShadow]

Calm down sparky, you are going to have a coronary. I know you know the Book of Mormon is true. I know you know the Book of Mormon is the Jesus fruit of the loom. You got that burning your bosom, right?

....okay first, I'm not mad. At all. Second, what does my testimony have to do with you backing up a simple claim with evidence? You said it was proven to be a hoax, I'm waiting for evidence (I'd prefer to wait for it on another thread, so this one doesn't get hijacked). Are you saying that because I have a testimony (a matter of faith) I should allow you to make unsubstantiated claims about things being proven false (a matter of logic)?

Let me ask you something, why do you need a debate when you KNOW it is true from the Holy Ghost?

I don't. They're two different things, as I stated above. My testimony (a matter of faith) would not be affected by a debate (a matter of logic).

Doesn't Jesus teach you that each individual needs to fill their own lamp? Do you think a debate is going to fill my lamp with the oil I need?

You really need to read the intro to my debate with Melissa. A debate isn't going to affect the oil in either of our lamps. It's a matter of logic.

Do you care more about winning or letting your light shine?

Either-or fallacy. I let my light shine the best way I know how, but my challenge is not about my light. It's about you making good on an unsubstantiated claim.

Did you go on a mission for the church?

Yes.

Did you argue with investigators the way you are arguing here?

Another either-or fallacy. When I was a missionary, I dealt in matters of faith. In a debate, I deal in matters of logic. In the mission field, I didn't debate investigators...becuase I was dealing in matters of faith.

How do you invite the spirit when you get all up in somebody’s face with your "CHALLENGE".

I invite the Spirit when I speak of spiritual matters. Scientific analysis of the Book of Mormon is not a spiritual matter.

I'm very sorry if I offended you, Bathsheba, but this isn't about me trying to convert you. It's about your snide little aside that the Book of Mormon has been proven to be a hoax. That's a claim that appeals to logic, so I asked you to provide me with some evidence that can be logically appraised.

I wasn't trying to go all "Smackdown vs. Raw" on you with the invitation to a private debate. Rather, I was trying to give you the opportunity to make good on your claim. You are equally welcome to apologize, or correct the statement to reflect as your opinion rather than something proven. Or you can just ignore my challenge and we'll move on with the thread. Whatever you want.

Either way, I'm sending you some friendship frubals.

 

[KingM]

I have never had a warm fuzzy feeling except when drinkin a mug of hot cocoa.

What I'm talking about is that transcendant feeling that comes at certain moments, including religious moments. That's what an LDS testimony is.

Where this breaks down is that you can experience transcendant moments at other times that clearly have nothing to do with religion. I've had these feelings when standing on top of the mountain, or when makin love to my wife. I have them all the time when listening to good music. Is this the spirit testifying as to the truthfulness of the Beatles?

 

[KingM]

Yes, but all you point to is the absence of such feelings. You just don't have a good feeling about all the humanitarian efforst they have produced or the prophesies made by the prophets because they aren't grand enough or exact enough. At least that's the way it seems in this thread.

That's totally different. When you ask LDS people why their church is true, these are the typical answers:

1. We have modern prophets
2. Joseph Smith could have never written the Book of Mormon
3. Look at the fruits of the tree
4. Pray and the spirit will tell you it's true.

I have issues with all of those, but right here I'm saying that #4--warm feelings about a subject irrespective of evidence--is an exceptionally poor way to determine the truthfulness of a claim. It might be the worst, in fact.

 

[Bathsheba]

[/color]It's about your snide little aside that the Book of Mormon has been proven to be a hoax.

Actually, what I said was, "so-called scripture which has been shown to be a hoax".

I was thinking of the Book of Abraham when I wrote that. You jumped to a confusion my furbal dispensing friend.

 

[Aqualung]

That's totally different.

How so? LDS say it's true because of X. You say it's true because of X inverse. Yet both are still dealing with the nature of X.

When you ask LDS people why their church is true, these are the typical answers:

1. We have modern prophets
2. Joseph Smith could have never written the Book of Mormon
3. Look at the fruits of the tree
4. Pray and the spirit will tell you it's true.

I have issues with all of those, but right here I'm saying that #4--warm feelings about a subject irrespective of evidence--is an exceptionally poor way to determine the truthfulness of a claim. It might be the worst, in fact.

Oh, I understand now. So you really don't care what lds believe, just why they believe it.