How can you claim joseph smith was a prophet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter e46m3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pahoran said:
Well, duh!

Could it be that the revolutionary war wasn’t still future?

The prophecy describes future wars. Starting in the near future and “panning” down to the Second Coming of Christ.

Sorry twopekinguys, but that was a very ordinary effort.

Why thank you for your very condescending pat on the head. Do I get a lollipop too?

I’m sorry that I cannot return the compliment.

Unlike your good self, I believe the prophecy in question to be sacred scripture. Unlike your good self, I’m not trying to find something to debunk. Unlike your good self, I’m actually making a good faith effort to understand what it actually means.

As a result of which, unlike your good self, I do understand it; and you do not.

I’ll type this r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y so you might be able to keep up:

Section.
87.
Does.
Not.
Talk.
Only.
About.
The.
Civil.
War.

When you actually grasp this fact, you’ll be making a “good try.”

Until then, you’re not even making an effort at all.

So it would.

Section 87 does not say that the UK would intervene.

Section 87 says that the South would “call upon” the UK.

And so they did; Google Mason and Slidell.

However, I repeat: Section 87 does not say that the UK would answer the call that the South would extend.

What it says instead is that the UK would call upon other nations in order to defend herself against other nations. (Entirely from memory.)

Which did indeed happen – for the first time in modern history – in 1914.

(Unless you count the Boer War; but I don’t think we do. The UK only called upon her own empire in that one. But even if you insist that that counts, the Boer war was still in the future in 1832.)

So far, Joseph keeps hitting those bullseyes.

One of you Peking guys should tell the other Peking guy not to assume that I don’t already know this stuff; because, in fact, I do.

The fact is that you have not understood the section in question. I don’t think you’ve even tried.

How about: 3. He is speaking as a prophet when he dictates it as a revelation.

In fact, how about this: you have the simple courage to allow Latter-day Saints to speak for our own faith tradition, and you speak for yours.

If you are unable to do that, then that is a “tacit admission” (following your dear friend SirThomasMore) that you cannot handle a discussion with us unless you control both sides of it; isn’t that right?

Face it: they are no such thing, and you cannot make them such without resorting to heavy-handed misreading thereof.

Thank you, I have it on my shelf.

Funnily enough, I can count. The issue is not what Joseph thought; it is what he was prepared to attribute to revelation. His opinion about what “should” happen was emphatically NOT it.

Again, if you’re going to try patronising someone, you really ought to pick someone who knows less about the subject than you do.

Regards,
Pahoran
Click to expand...
87 was no prophesy. If Pahoran knew as much on the topic as he claims, he would know that newspapers were saying the same thing before Joe ever wrote 87.
 
SirThomasMore said:
Good Stuff, Two…

There are a plethora of proofs that show Joe was no prophet of God.

The false prophesies are just one of those proofs.

I wonder if Pahoran will take me up on the challenge that Zerenius and Todd have ignored.

I will go to a Biblical town like Bethlehem, and he can go to a Book of Mormon town- Zerahemla, and we will see who gets to their town first. I am willing to give Pahoran a head start
Click to expand...
guess Pahoran ignores trhe challenge, as well.

hmmmm
 
There is no need to quote Scriptures or even the BM and DC to determine if Joe was a prophet. Just look at him…
  1. A con man- arrested for treasure seeking. He later uses those treasure-seeking stones to translate the BM
  2. Dishonest- lied about somehow carrying, at the very minimum, 50-60 pounds in a bag and running faster then three men at night, over rough terrain, and him with a bad leg
  3. Dishonest- had at least nine different versions of the alleged first vision.
  4. Dishonest- several versions of how he got the plates.
  5. Dishonest- affidavits from several friends and family re: the book of mormon that show it is stolen. To rebut the affidavits of those honest people, Joe provides 11 witnesses who he laters says are all liars who cannot be trusted.
  6. Dishonest- claims to have written a history of a land and people and there is absolutely no evidence that supports any of those claims
  7. Dishonest- lost people a LOT of money in bank scams, then ran away from creditors and the law
  8. No Morals- gets caught in an affair and uses polygamy to excuse it
  9. Heretic- invents a god that was once a sinful man. claims we can all be gods (like Satan did in the Garden of Eden), invents a god that changes his mind when the going gets tough, and invents a god that is incredibly racist.
Is there any doubt from intelligent people that this man was NOT a prophet?
 
Pahoran said:
Well, duh!

Could it be that the revolutionary war wasn’t still future?

The prophecy describes future wars. Starting in the near future and “panning” down to the Second Coming of Christ.

Sorry twopekinguys, but that was a very ordinary effort.

Why thank you for your very condescending pat on the head. Do I get a lollipop too?

I’m sorry that I cannot return the compliment.

Unlike your good self, I believe the prophecy in question to be sacred scripture. Unlike your good self, I’m not trying to find something to debunk. Unlike your good self, I’m actually making a good faith effort to understand what it actually means.

As a result of which, unlike your good self, I do understand it; and you do not.

I’ll type this r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y so you might be able to keep up:

Section.
87.
Does.
Not.
Talk.
Only.
About.
The.
Civil.
War.

When you actually grasp this fact, you’ll be making a “good try.”

Until then, you’re not even making an effort at all.

So it would.

Section 87 does not say that the UK would intervene.

Section 87 says that the South would “call upon” the UK.

And so they did; Google Mason and Slidell.

However, I repeat: Section 87 does not say that the UK would answer the call that the South would extend.

What it says instead is that the UK would call upon other nations in order to defend herself against other nations. (Entirely from memory.)

Which did indeed happen – for the first time in modern history – in 1914.

(Unless you count the Boer War; but I don’t think we do. The UK only called upon her own empire in that one. But even if you insist that that counts, the Boer war was still in the future in 1832.)

So far, Joseph keeps hitting those bullseyes.

One of you Peking guys should tell the other Peking guy not to assume that I don’t already know this stuff; because, in fact, I do.

The fact is that you have not understood the section in question. I don’t think you’ve even tried.

How about: 3. He is speaking as a prophet when he dictates it as a revelation.

In fact, how about this: you have the simple courage to allow Latter-day Saints to speak for our own faith tradition, and you speak for yours.

If you are unable to do that, then that is a “tacit admission” (following your dear friend SirThomasMore) that you cannot handle a discussion with us unless you control both sides of it; isn’t that right?

Face it: they are no such thing, and you cannot make them such without resorting to heavy-handed misreading thereof.

Thank you, I have it on my shelf.

Funnily enough, I can count. The issue is not what Joseph thought; it is what he was prepared to attribute to revelation. His opinion about what “should” happen was emphatically NOT it.

Again, if you’re going to try patronising someone, you really ought to pick someone who knows less about the subject than you do.

Regards,
Pahoran
Click to expand...
You make me giggle.

Like so many other mormon posters on here, you must have one heck of a case of Repetitive Stress Syndrome, aka Carpal tunnel, the way you twist things to fit what you need them to instead of them letting them speak for themselves.

You’re happy with what you think is right, and if that works for you, then I’m happy for you.

It is just a shame that you want to settle for something less than the truth.

BTW, I was not trying to be condecending or patronizing in my previous post, however, I see that you did not hesitate to eagerly take that line.
 
Pahoran said:
He did, however, dictate it as a revelation. Didn’t you know that? The sections of the Doctrine and Covenants are not just random sayings of his, you know.
Click to expand...
Please show where Smith split that revelation off as part being just his opinion.
So how about it, Rebecca? Are you game?
Click to expand...
How about you don’t tell me what to say or how to say it. That would be considered a standard norm of good manners. Are you game?
 
Is it a Mormon mother/fathers prayer that their children, particularly their sons, emulate Jospeh Smith?
 
Pahoran said:
Alpha and Omega ministries? James White’s outfit? Heaven help us!

Do you find his anti-Catholic polemics as compelling as you find his anti-Mormon stuff? I do, so I’m not relying upon any double standard here.

No, they are not “all fabrications.” They are primarily distortions, misrepresentations and selectively edited reports; often of second-hand materials.

Regards,
Pahoran
Click to expand...
My opinion is that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Can you give me an example of one of the distortions and misrepresentations? They seem fairly straightforward to me.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Please show where Smith split that revelation off as part being just his opinion.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand the question.

The portion of Section 130 that you tried to dismiss because it wasn’t added to the Doctrine and Covenants until after his death, was dictated, by him, to his secretary (William Clayton, IIRC) to be recorded as a revelation.

That was, just incidentally, while he was alive.

The talk that is summarised or paraphrased – and NOT quoted – to say “fifty-six years” was, however not dictated by him to his secretary to be recorded as a revelation.

Therefore we, the Latter-day Saints, have an entirely objective method to determine which of the two statements was made by him while “speaking as a prophet.”

Which is not something I introduced into the discussion, incidentally.

What I said was that the revelation recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants is the authorised, canonical version of that revelation, and the only one that is binding upon the Latter-day Saints.

And anyone who tries to shove a second-hand account of something someone heard him say at a meeting down our throats is someone who clearly has no intention of discussing this question in good faith.
RebeccaJ said:
How about you don’t tell me what to say or how to say it. That would be considered a standard norm of good manners. Are you game?
Click to expand...
Not only will I not tell you what to say or how to say it, I will also promise never to be so arrogant, presumptuous, rude, malicious, spiteful, hateful and uncharitable as to tell you(!) what the statements of your(!) leaders mean.

Because I, you see, am prepared to discuss these things with you in good faith.

But, should I see you or anyone else failing to observe the rules of civil interfaith dialogue, I will point that out to you.

Will that do?

Regards,
Pahoran
 
SirThomasMore said:
guess Pahoran ignores trhe challenge, as well.

hmmmm
Click to expand...
I have neither the time, the money or the inclination to just jump on a plane and fly off to Nahom (Nehhem) or Bountiful (Khor Kharfot) just because some Internet WUM likes to fling adolescent taunts at the people he despises.

Regards,
Pahoran
 
Pahoran said:
I have neither the time, the money or the inclination to just jump on a plane and fly off to Nahom (Nehhem) or Bountiful (Khor Kharfot) just because some Internet WUM likes to fling adolescent taunts at the people he despises.

Regards,
Pahoran
Click to expand...
lol…translation: “I have neither time to look for places that don;t exist, the money to finance looking for places that don;t exist, or the inclinition to waste my time looking for places that don’t exist just because someone who KNOWS the truth challenges me to put my money where my mouth is.”

btw, not sure what WUM means, but I think its cute that you lost control again and resorted to name calling
 
SirThomasMore said:
lol…translation: “I have neither time to look for places that don;t exist, the money to finance looking for places that don;t exist, or the inclinition to waste my time looking for places that don’t exist just because someone who KNOWS the truth challenges me to put my money where my mouth is.”

btw, not sure what WUM means, but I think its cute that you lost control again and resorted to name calling
Click to expand...
Would this be one of those cases of “But, should I see you or anyone else failing to observe the rules of civil interfaith dialogue, I will point that out to you.”?
 
SirThomasMore said:
lol…translation: "I have neither time to look for places that don;t exist,
Click to expand...
No, that’s another of the counterfactual claims you delight in. It means I don’t have time to fly to Arabia. I have a job, a family and a life here in New Zealand.

The places certainly exist.
SirThomasMore said:
the money to finance looking for places that don;t exist,
Click to expand...
No, that’s another of the counterfactual claims you delight in. It means I don’t have the money to fly to Arabia. I have a mortgage and bills to pay.
SirThomasMore said:
or the inclinition to waste my time looking for places that don’t exist just because someone who KNOWS the truth challenges me to put my money where my mouth is."
Click to expand...
No, that’s another of the counterfactual claims you delight in. It means I don’t have the inclination to be jerked around by you and your adolescent taunts.

And if you really “KNOW the truth” don’t you think you should stop with the falsehoods?

The fact that you make not the slightest effort to gain the higher ground is a “tacit admission” that you know it’s beyond you, isn’t it?
SirThomasMore said:
btw, not sure what WUM means, but I think its cute that you lost control again and resorted to name calling
Click to expand...
It stands for “wind-up merchant.” It describes what you do: you like to wind people up by goading them with provocative lies and adolescent taunts.

Perhaps if you stopped, it might be possible to have a decent conversation with you.

Are you game?

Regards,
Pahoran
 
twopekinguys said:
Would this be one of those cases of “But, should I see you or anyone else failing to observe the rules of civil interfaith dialogue, I will point that out to you.”?
Click to expand...
So, nothing substantive to add, then?

Regards,
Pahoran
 
Sir TM, the phase “peer review” is anathema to LDS scholarship when discussing matters of faith. Those scholars employed outside of the realms of LDS apologetics have an “anti-Mormon” axe to grind, don’t ya know?
 
scipio337 said:
Sir TM, the phase “peer review” is anathema to LDS scholarship when discussing matters of faith.
Click to expand...
This is a popular canard; can you support it?
scipio337 said:
Those scholars employed outside of the realms of LDS apologetics have an “anti-Mormon” axe to grind, don’t ya know?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t know. Call for references, please.

Regards,
Pahoran
 
SirThomasMore said:
lol…if the places existed, you would go…but, nice excuse. Of course, we all see thru it.
Click to expand...
What an idiotic claim. There are thousands of places that exist that I’ve never been to, and will probably never go to.

There are also thousands of places that you’ve never been to, and probably never will. I take it you don’t believe those places exist either, or do your standards only apply to your opponents?

Your adolescent “neener neener” taunts and false accusations are growing ever more tiresome.
SirThomasMore said:
But, again, your arguments thus far are tacit admissions that the LDS Church is false.
Click to expand...
Actually, I find your terrified refusal to allow popes – the Vicars of Christ and successors of St. Peter – to be held to the same standards that you demand of LDS prophets as a “tacit admission” that the Catholic Church must be less true than the Church of Jesus Christ.

I also find your insistence on creating straw man truth claims that the Church does not make for itself to be a “tacit admission” that the Church’s actual truth claims are unassailable by your spiteful sophistries.

And I find your resolute insistence on defining our doctrine for us as a “tacit admission” that a level playing field would favour us.

And you know what? All of those tacit admissions, although they merely express your own insecurity, are true.

You are right to feel insecure in your position.
SirThomasMore said:
I will continue speaking the truth. I am commanded by God to speak the truth. I will listen to God.
Click to expand...
Before you can “continue” to do something, you have to start. I suggest you do so.

Regards,
Pahoran
 
SirThomasMore said:
lol…but the other places don’t prove the validity of the BM. Nice dodge. And settle down. Stop getting so angry.

lol…The places I want to go to are not debated as to their existence. I want to go to Rome. Everyone knows and agrees Rome is Rome. I want to go to the Holy Land. Everyone knows and agrees that Jerusalem is Jerusalem. Nice dodge. Nice red herring. Did not work
Click to expand...
Lol… not everyone wants what you want. Lol… I love it when you get desperate and start accusing me of “red herrings” when you and I both know that no such thing is in view.

The only thing that “did not work” is your argument. I know where Nahom is. I know where Bountiful is. I might possibly go to those places someday. Today is not that day.

And the only thing that this exhange proves is that you are operating on an absurdly adolescent level.

Lol.

Snp more adolescent taunts.
SirThomasMore said:
RED HERRING!!! That is like saying I need to hold a basketball player to the same standard on a football field as a football player.
Click to expand...
Utterly bogus analogy. You believe that popes are the Vicars of Christ, the successors to St. Peter, and are, in certain circumstances, infallible. Latter-day Saints believe that our prophets are prophets just like Moses, who lost his temper and killed people, Joshua, who was deceived by false claims, Jonah, who sulked when the Lord didn’t destroy Ninevah, and Ezekiel, who prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would take Tyre, and when he couldn’t, promised him that he could have Egypt instead.
SirThomasMore said:
Again, your desire to hold a Pope who is not a prophet with a person who is is a tacit admission that your guys ain;t prophets (though we already knew that). Thank you again for your admission
Click to expand...
Again, your refusal to hold someone you believe to be a servant of God to the same standard as someone you believe is not, is a tacit admission that your guys ain’t the Vicars of Christ and successors to St. Peter (though we already knew that). Thank you again for your admission.

Snip more adolescent taunts.

Regards,
Pahoran
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top