True and False Prophets - Just and Honest Determination

[URAVIP2ME]

Yeah, let's look at Christianity for an example. The fruit? A lot of rotten and bad fruit in there. The Inquisitions, people being burned at the stake for heresy or being accused of being a witch.
And the message? Jesus is God and the only way to get to heaven.............................................................................................................

Or, look at ' so-called Christianity' because Jesus said MANY would call him Lord but prove false - see Matthew 7:21-23
That does Not make the teachings of Jesus as wrong but the wrong teachings about Jesus as wrong

Jesus is the way, the truth, the life but that includes more than some resurrected to Heaven - Rev. 20:6; 5;9-10
Jesus also promised that humble meek people will inherit the Earth at Matt. 5:5 from Psalms 37:9-11; 22:26
In other words, 'there will be' (future) a resurrection.......... - Acts 24:15 ( KJV of the just and unjust )
Ones like those of Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18 resurrected to Heaven, and the majority resurrected to live life on Earth
A beautiful paradisical Earth as described in the 35th chapter of Isaiah

Jesus never claimed to be his own God but to worship his God - John 4:23-24
Only God was ' before ' any beginning (Psalm 90:2) but pre-human heavenly Jesus was "IN" the beginning but Not 'before' the beginning
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him according to Revelation 3:12

 

[Pete in Panama]

It is in the opinion department, and I have my own opinion. My opinion lies in the middle between the two extremes.

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

I do not only believe the Baha'i authoritative sources. I can read what scholars have to say and believe them if I want to.

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl was praised and recommended by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and has been justifiably called the most learned and erudite Bahá'í scholar[16]
Concerning the Book of Christ, he wrote that "The Holy Gospels alone contain teachings which can be regarded as the true Words of God; and these teachings do not exceed the contents of a few pages."[18]

Opinions are nice & I also gain much from checking them out.

Life is so short and we have so much to do that what's happening in my life is that I find myself spending too much time exchanging opinions and not enough time sharing the faith w/ those of other religions. For me this sharing is a serious mandate and opinion sharing is something that I've got to get to only when there's extra time.

In sharing the faith w/ those of other faiths we need to be caring and loving. It's cruel to criticize and put down those of other faiths, that approach conceals and holds in our acceptance of the oneness and equality of religions. We could say that ignoring the common source and mission of the world's religions is a tremendous factor in the disunity that presents such an obstacle of our ever advancing civilization.

My personal view however is that unity is the world's dominant trend. I'd say we're generally good.

 

[Aupmanyav]

God is real, the proof is the fruit of the Messengers and the subsequent Message that becomes the set standard people can choose to live by.

I have not needed any of the messengers sent by the God of Abraham; Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Bahaollah or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Zoroaster was not selected by God of Abraham but by Ahur Mazda. And to include Krishna (just him and no other) and Buddha is Bahai dishonesty. They had nothing to do with God of Abraham.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Anyway, since I’m not interested in trying to compare a false Christ to the true one I only respond to Baha’i claims and distortions of the Christian scriptures that may mislead others who don’t know.

We do not know Persian, the language in which Bahaollah wrote. We know only what his son, Abdul, his great Grandson, Shoghi, who acceded the throne one after the other, and later their House of Justice have dished out. And they are all over the internet. I do not know who spends more on advertising, McDonald, Nescafe or the Bahais. Only the Chinese escape that because they have their own search engine, Baidu.

 

[Sumadji]

Luke seems to be the Gospel that Christians like to use to "prove" that the resurrection was physical because Jesus said he was flesh and blood in that one and ate a fish. The other Gospels are weaker in that regard. But the same writer of Luke scholars know wrote the Acts of the Apostles, and first thing, Jesus ascends bodily to heaven in that one, which by today's science we know that "heaven" as in going up in the sky is empty space. There is no physical heaven there. There is no proof from the Gospels that a physical resurrection happened.

I believe that the risen Christ as master of the flesh and master of nature is able to 'weave' and discard a physical body at will. There are Biblical accounts of angels manifesting in a physical form and eating and wrestling with mortals, and Christians believe the risen Christ is higher than all the angels.

Mastery over the natural body and the ability to manifest a form, or many forms in different places at the same time, is a part of Eastern immortality yogas.

Regarding the ascension of the Christ, that is not the same as the resurrection. I prefer to think of the ascension as a matrix sort of fade-out and a returning of the physical form to the spiritual dimension from which it took shape, and not as a physical rising into the air. On the same subject: the ascension of Christ is clearly meant as a bodily ascension of the living Christ and not, as in the case of Baha'u'lla's 'ascension' the fact that he died and is buried like any other mortal, and that his spirit went to heaven afterwards.

If the body was stolen maybe to cover their tracks they would use the same story in all the Gospels. But I'm not sure that my logic is sound on that one. I just don't think that the disciples were that wayward in their ethics would make up a story to sell to people as the truth. I do believe in Christ and he taught them better than that in my opinion.

Yes

there was a merger with another church, and the leader of that group banned Sara, saying that she had to "protect" the secular Franciscans there.

Thank you for the explanation. It sounds like very shabby treatment of your wife by the Franciscans. My sympathy

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I'm not sure how I could repeat what you're saying in my own words w/o your saying I'm misquoting you.

It is not easy to talk about unheard words. I was trying to explain how it works to someone earlier in a couple of simple ways that maybe you might be able to grasp.

Here:

Yeah it could sound funny to you because you cant hear the words. You cant hear the words because you don't know where to put them. When you know where the words go then you can hear them. When sense is made the nonsense is no longer funny.

I can show you very clear bible evidence.

Evidence that you cant hear the words:
"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word". John

And further evidence of not being able to hear the specific three words corn, oil, and wine:
"And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel". Hosea.


I will show you where to put those words.

The Oil isn't bread/wine like you said. Bread, Oil, and Wine are as three separate things/words. But just as Corn (Grain) is for Bread, Olive is for Oil, and Grape is for Wine there are other connected words to the three separate things. And more words are connected to the three separate words like fields of corn for bread, and oliveyards of olive trees for oil, and vineyards of grapes for wine.

"And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants".

So it looks like this word structure:

Bread - Oil - Wine
Corn - Olive - Grape
Field - Oliveyard - Vineyard

The three separate words can be seen as horizontal and you can also see their connection by vertical. Each word is in its correct place.

Now here it might start sounding funny. Please try to focus.



Here we can see the valley, hill, and mountain and also the sea, the river and the stream.

And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod. Isaiah

And say, Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord God; Thus saith the Lord God to the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys; Behold, I, even I, will bring a sword upon you, and I will destroy your high places. Ezekiel.


They are two sets of three separate words. Being words at three different levels of height.

Like this:

Sea - River - Stream
Valley - Hill - Mountain

Now for the funny part. Putting it all together.

Bread - Oil - Wine
Corn - Olive - Grape
Field - Oliveyard - Vineyard
Sea - River - Stream
Valley - Hill - Mountain

So we can clearly understand:

The valleys are covered in corn:
The pastures are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing. Psalm.

The river is as oil:
Then will I make their waters deep, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord God. Ezekiel

The mountains of wine:
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.


Look down the three verticals:

Bread - Oil - Wine
Corn - Olive - Grape
Field - Oliveyard - Vineyard
Sea - River - Stream
Valley - Hill - Mountain

I am showing in bold there is corn in valley, oil as river, and wine in the place of mountain.

So can you understand the unheard words corn (bread) oil, and wine are as three different positions in three different levels of height?

If you can understand this concept of word placement I can show the whole bible works like this and we might be able to have a serious conversation about some really crazy bible nonsense. People don't know how in the bible a word can jump to a seemingly unrelated word in a sentence. They call it magic or nonsense.

And here:

I could try to explain the concept to you in a different way without words.

So we have three positions. We will call them 1, 2, and 3.

And we will also call them A, B, and C.

Both ways are equal.

1 - 2 - 3
A - B - C

So can you hear the saying "C is 3" without it sounding like nonsense or some kind of magic?

Are you now able to understand the three words bread, oil, and wine are sharing positions with the three words sea, river and stream?

So the river is as oil, and the oil is as river. Which could sound like opposites but there is no contradiction as both ways are correct.

If you can understand this word positioning concept as why one word can be as another then I could say either the word Bread, or Oil, or Wine and you would be able to hear that I am talking about the specific position of the word.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

One hears of the Message of Baha’u’llah and researches it for their own self. That is being honest and just, not relying on 2nd hand opinions.

One should never demand or hint that others are responsible to deliver the answers they themselves should be seeking and deciding upon for their own selves.

Regards Tony

If you are not able to explain the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet then you are clearly just assuming Baha'u'llah is a true prophet and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a false prophet. Unable to tell the difference between them you would just be assuming Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is wrong only because you assume Baha'u'llah is right.

A judgement of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad based on assumption would not be honest or just.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I have done my own research. I know that Baha'u'llah is a true prophet, and that means that Ahmad has to be a false prophet, given what Bahaullah wrote about no more prophets for 1000 years from 1852 AD.

I already told you that I know the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet. A true prophet has good fruits and a false prophet has evil fruits. I believe that Baha'u'llah had good fruits and Ahmad had evil fruits.

I do know that Baha'u'llah is a true prophet. That is not an assumption, it is a belief, and my belief is based on extensive research.

You haven't told me anything. You say Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a liar and evil. Those are serious accusations. What research did you do to determine that? What evidence do you have?

As @CG Didymus says it sounds like their aim is to produce good:

Here's a quote from part of a speech given by an Ahmadiyya leader. Sounds like there aim is to produce good. So, what are Baha'is going to do? Call them evil and a false religion with a false prophet?

So you have the problem of two good fruits therefore two true prophets, unless you can explain exactly why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is evil and therefore a false prophet.

 

[Pete in Panama]

It is not easy to talk about unheard words. I was trying to explain how it works to someone earlier in a couple of simple ways that maybe you might be able to grasp.

Here:


And here:


Are you now able to understand the three words bread, oil, and wine are sharing positions with the three words sea, river and stream?

So the river is as oil, and the oil is as river. Which could sound like opposites but there is no contradiction as both ways are correct.

If you can understand this word positioning concept as why one word can be as another then I could say either the word Bread, or Oil, or Wine and you would be able to hear that I am talking about the specific position of the word.

How about that. At any rate what I said was "no problem, everyone has a right to their own statements". Something I find more significant is the different meanings in the verses of the Bible. It would be nice if we could explore it w/o fighting or circling.

 

[CG Didymus]

You haven't told me anything. You say Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a liar and evil. Those are serious accusations. What research did you do to determine that? What evidence do you have?

As @CG Didymus says it sounds like their aim is to produce good:


So you have the problem of two good fruits therefore two true prophets, unless you can explain exactly why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is evil and therefore a false prophet.

The Baha'is have a similar situation with other religious groups that have a founder that claimed to be a prophet or some sort of "Promised One." The Mormons are one of those groups. Their prophet claims to have spoken with an angel from God. For Baha'is, that should qualify him to be at least a prophet or maybe even a manifestation. But no...

Regarding your question concerning Joseph Smith and the 'Book of Mormon'; as the Bahá’í Teachings quite clearly outline the succession of Prophets from the days of Christ as being Muhammad, the Báb, and finally Bahá’u’lláh, it is obvious that Joseph Smith is not a Manifestation of God.​

Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 510​

​

The Mormons are a people with high principles and ideals, and the step spiritually into the Cause is not as difficult for them as for many others not possessing their faith and devotion. However, the very zeal with which they serve their own Faith makes it difficult for them to grasp the greater vision of our Holy Cause.​

Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 510-511​

​

As for the status of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Faith, he is not considered by Bahá’ís to be a prophet, minor or otherwise. But of course he was a religious teacher sensitive to the spiritual currents flowing in the early 19th century directly from the appearance of the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh and the Revelation of Their Messages of hope and Divine Guidance. In this respect you might find chapter ten in the late Hand of the Cause George Townshend's book, 'Christ and Bahá’u’lláh,' interesting.​

Universal House of Justice, Lights of Guidance, p. 511​

So, do Baha'is really believe the claims made by Joseph Smith? Did he speak with an angel, who told him where to find the Golden Plates, that got translated into being the Book of Mormon? And do Baha'is believe what is said in the Book of Mormon?

I don't see how Baha'is could say "yes", so I'm going to assume they say, "no". And that still puts them in a difficult position... They have to accept the Mormons as people that believe in God and are doing good things, the good fruit, but reject their Scriptures and reject their founder as being a prophet.

And that's probably what they will do with the Ahmadiyya... Accept the people as being good, spiritual people... that are producing good fruit, but reject their founder's claim as being the Mahdi or Jesus or even a prophet.

So, if that's what Baha'is do, then they can reject any strange and weird person that claims to be the return of Christ or the Mahdi, but accept the people.

The trouble is... It's that person that is claiming to be Jesus or a prophet of God that is getting people to believe in him and his teachings that is getting those people to have the good fruits. Then how can we know a false prophet by their "fruits", if even they have good fruit?

And that gets us to what some Christians say about the Baha'i Faith... The people may do good things, but that doesn't make their prophet true.

It is the false beliefs and teachings of their prophet that is the "bad" fruit, because those "bad" teachings deceive people and lead them away from the true Jesus.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...The Mormons are one of those groups. Their prophet claims to have spoken with an angel from God. For Baha'is, that should qualify him to be at least a prophet or maybe even a manifestation. But no...

You can't be saying that you expect the Baha'is to recognize anyone who "claims" to be devine. Are you?

 

[CG Didymus]

Our topic here is religion and it was my understanding that we all agreed in the oneness of religion, that Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah all had the same presence --they were all equal in their value and they came at different times for distinct dispensations. They were all good, they all left a sacred book, and while some of their followers were bad the vast majority did well and humankind carried forward an ever advancing civilization.

When did I agree with the Baha'i concept of the "oneness" of religion?

What was the "oneness" of religion in the time of Moses? All the people around them believed in false Gods and false religions. And some of those neighboring people had a much more "advanced" civilization. Like the Egyptians... Like the Babylonians and so on.

Then about the book... Do Baha'is believe that Moses wrote the Torah? From what I found, it doesn't seem like it. And I think it's more likely that the traditions were past down and eventually written down long after Moses. But that assumes that Moses was real.

And even if Baha'is believe that Moses was a real, historical person, nothing I found sounds like Baha'is believe the stories about him were literally true. Like his staff turning into a snake... all the plagues against Egypt... the parting of the sea etc.

So, out of all that what do we agree on?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you have the problem of two good fruits therefore two true prophets, unless you can explain exactly why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is evil and therefore a false prophet.

I have already explained that at least twice.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If you are not able to explain the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet then you are clearly just assuming Baha'u'llah is a true prophet and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a false prophet. Unable to tell the difference between them you would just be assuming Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is wrong only because you assume Baha'u'llah is right.

A judgement of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad based on assumption would not be honest or just.

It is up to you to make that judgement, I am of the opinion my judgement is for me.

As the person of the Messengers is their greatest proof, that their knowledge of the Word of God is innate, one of the tests is that of knowledge, where was it obtained. Also they give a New Message, they abrogate the old and give the new.

With Mirza Ghulam Ahmad he had a religious education and prided himself on his ability to acquire that knowledge, he stated he has mastered the teachings of the Bab. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also progressively modified his teachings as his knowledge grew. This is not innate knowledge.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad uses Muhammad and the Quran, and does not have an independent God given Revelation.

That is but 2 aspects I have considered, and that is where I leave it.

I conclude with the observation that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did embrace and share much good from his learnings.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You can't be saying that you expect the Baha'is to recognize anyone who "claims" to be devine. Are you?

It is the easy way to convince one's own self that one is justified in not searching for the truth. By bringing up all the obvious false claims, it supports the inaction of searching for the true claim.

It is an annoying negative trait, that we can so easily justify in our own selves, it manifests in us, in many ways. I see we all fight this in our own struggles on many fronts, I know I have and do, that is, justifying our choices in a chosen ignorance.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

You can't be saying that you expect the Baha'is to recognize anyone who "claims" to be devine. Are you?

No, I'm saying why reject him. His claim is he spoke with an angel. How is that different than Baha'u'llah or Muhammad?

But do Baha'is reject his claim? If Baha'is do, then he is more than just "not" a prophet... he is a false prophet.

It is the easy way to convince one's own self that one is justified in not searching for the truth. By bringing up all the obvious false claims, it supports the inaction of searching for the true claim.

Or... it's part of searching for the truth. For some people the claims of Baha'u'llah are "obvious" false claims. There's several people these last couple of years that gave the Baha'is plenty of opportunity to present their proof and evidence that the claims of Baha'u'llah are true. And the "proof"? Is Baha'u'llah himself? His writings, his character and his mission.? Talk about an "easy" way to not have to prove anything.

Then, a related question, proof and evidence for God. Which Baha'is say is the various manifestations? The only thing we can know about God is what they tell us, but they have all said different things.

So, are there some people that have made the claim of having spoken with angels or called themselves the return of Christ that are lying?

If so, are Joseph Smith and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad among them?

And you can't use that thing about good and bad fruit, because the Ahmadiyya and the Mormons/LDS have as much good fruit as any other religious group. And you can't use that their teachings are the "bad" fruit, because that's what the Born Again Christians use against you, the Baha'is.

And I don't think Baha'is want to pretend they believe all the religions, with their varying beliefs, are all paths to God or to Enlightenment or to Truth.

Because Baha'is believe that they are the only religion that has the new teachings from God that are necessary to unite the world and bring peace... Baha'is don't believe any of the other religions can do that.. that the teachings of those other religions are not for today.

 

[CG Didymus]

Also they give a New Message, they abrogate the old and give the new.

Every people around the world had a religion and they had Gods. How many were true religions? With the example of Moses, none of the other people in the Middle East believe in the one true God. So, which true religion did the teachings of Moses "abrogate"? Abraham's? And if so, what religion might that have been?

But then Baha'is claim that Hinduism and Buddhism are true religions. When did Judaism abrogate Hinduism? And when did Buddhism abrogate Judaism?

Your beliefs don't fit very well with all religions. Especially with Hinduism. There isn't just one Hinduism. And I think Baha'is know that. And even the Hinduism Baha'is support as being true, the one that follows Krishna, Baha'is don't ever talk about the other incarnations that came before Krishna. Baha'is only do the minimum to make it seem as though there has been a progression of manifestation that brought new, updated teachings from God.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is up to you to make that judgement, I am of the opinion my judgement is for me.

As the person of the Messengers is their greatest proof, that their knowledge of the Word of God is innate, one of the tests is that of knowledge, where was it obtained. Also they give a New Message, they abrogate the old and give the new.

With Mirza Ghulam Ahmad he had a religious education and prided himself on his ability to acquire that knowledge, he stated he has mastered the teachings of the Bab. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also progressively modified his teachings as his knowledge grew. This is not innate knowledge.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad uses Muhammad and the Quran, and does not have an independent God given Revelation.

That is but 2 aspects I have considered, and that is where I leave it.

I conclude with the observation that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did embrace and share much good from his learnings.

Regards Tony

If so, are Joseph Smith and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad among them?

This is for you to decide, I quoted a reply I made on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not a Messenger from God

With Joseph Smith, I see he was much like William Miller, they were inspired by Two Messengers that were already walking the earth, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Thus they will draw on many good things.

I found this interesting

"..With respect to scripture, Mormons differ from traditional Christian groups in that they accept extra books in their canon. In addition to the King James Version of the Bible, they add the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price..."

So again, Joseph Smith has added to the Bible of Jesus Christ, you know what the Bible says about adding to it, do you not? So make up your own mind.

II is interesting that the two books added "Doctrine and Covenants", and the "Pearl of Great Price", have strong explanations in the Baha'i Wrirings.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

But then Baha'is claim that Hinduism and Buddhism are true religions. When did Judaism abrogate Hinduism? And when did Buddhism abrogate Judaism?

No religions were abrogated.
It was the Dispensations of those religions that were abrogated, and that did not happen until the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it.....” (God Passes By, p. 100)

Bahá'í Reference Library - God Passes By, Pages 89-103

Your beliefs don't fit very well with all religions. Especially with Hinduism.

No, they don't fit, but there is no reason why they should fit. Hinduism is a different religion.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is for you to decide, I quoted a reply I made on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not a Messenger from God

With Joseph Smith, I see he was much like William Miller, they were inspired by Two Messengers that were already walking the earth, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Thus they will draw on many good things.

I found this interesting

"..With respect to scripture, Mormons differ from traditional Christian groups in that they accept extra books in their canon. In addition to the King James Version of the Bible, they add the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price..."

So again, Joseph Smith has added to the Bible of Jesus Christ, you know what the Bible says about adding to it, do you not? So make up your own mind.

II is interesting that the two books added "Doctrine and Covenants", and the "Pearl of Great Price", have strong explanations in the Baha'i Wrirings.

Regards Tony

But I'm asking what you, as a Baha'i, thinks... I don't see anything in any quotes that says that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. Yet, he claims an angel spoke with him. Which is what is claimed by Muhammad isn't it?

So, unless you openly are going to declare Smith a false prophet, then he is equal to at least Muhammad and maybe other manifestations.

As for my opinion, I question and doubt most all of the people Baha'is call manifestations. But what do I know. Actually... I know enough not to trust what people say about their own religion... but to double check the claims they make. Which is the correct thing to do, right?