In Defense of Joseph Smith

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thermopylae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BrotherofJared said:
Except the obvious, the his accomplishments, which is what he’s pointing to. His claim that Josephs work and the growth of that work couldn’t not be produced by a deviant pervert is substantive evidence that Josephs actions have been mis-read.
Click to expand...
I see no reason why a charismatic man who is also a deviate couldn’t pull off what JS did, especially one who was an accomplished liar.
 
lax16 said:
So you believe that Joseph Smith did greater works than Jesus Christ??? :confused:
Do you also believe Jesus couldn’t do it as stated by Joseph Smith?
Click to expand...
Again. Joseph did not state that Jesus couldn’t do it. Joseph said that He didn’t do it.
 
RebeccaJ said:
We view it in context of our communion with Jesus, who is the head of His Church. A promise that those who are in communion with, and seek and do the will of Jesus, will manifest the fruit of holiness. An example of Catholic teaching:

"The holiness of many
  1. One fruit of the conversion brought about by the Gospel is the holiness of so many men and women in our time: not only those whom the Church has officially proclaimed saints, but all those who with simplicity and amid the circumstances of their daily lives testified to their fidelity to Christ. How can one not think of the countless sons and daughters of the Church who throughout Europe’s history have lived lives of generous and authentic holiness in the hiddenness of their family and their professional and social lives? “All of them like ‘living stones’ adhering to Christ ‘the cornerstone’, have built Europe as a spiritual and moral edifice, leaving a most precious inheritance to the future generations. The Lord Jesus promised: 'He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father” (Jn 14:12). The saints are living proof of the fulfilment of this promise, and they encourage the belief that this is possible in the most difficult hours of history”. (APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION ECCLESIA IN EUROPA OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II, 28 June 2003)
It requires a view of greater being also not the greater as the world views greater. Jesus tells us to pick up our cross and follow Him. The difficult hours of our lives are the crosses we carry. Building the Kingdom of God on earth not done with the bravado of self centered actions, but of sacrifices willingly given with love, charity and fidelity to God.
Click to expand...
“It requires a view of greater being also not the greater as the world views greater.” I’ve heard similar statements like this to make the ordinary, take place of what Jesus obviously meant. This statement was made to his frightened apostles who were uncertain how they should carry on after he left. He was telling them [these things that you have seen me do, you will be able to do and greater things…] We are not talking about ordinary lives here. We are talking about healing the sick, raising the dead, restoring what was lost, establishing a kingdom that will not fail (of course, Joseph didn’t do it alone, but he was not boasting of his strength, only what he accomplished in spite of all the opposition).
 
Chris-WA said:
Not much of a defense at all. The Catholic Church has gone through far more turmoil (both external and internal) throughout its 2000-year history, but has survived (and thrived),
Click to expand...
This assumes that the Catholic church is the church Jesus founded. I don’t see the word Catholic anywhere in the New Testament. There is no evidence that early Christians were Catholic at all. Their trials are not the Catholic church’s trials.
 
lax16 said:
Joseph created a shadow church government (the council of fifty), formed the Danites to murder his enemies, made himself the General of a private army, had himself crowned king of the world, declared that as with Mohammed it would be “Joseph Smith or the sword”, and believed that he could be elected president of the United States. Had he lived just a few more years, all of his followers would either have been dead a al Jim Jones, or they would have abandoned him as a complete nut-job.
Click to expand...
These things aren’t true. These are statements that Mormon critics like to use because they add heat to their arguments. Many of them will use anything that sounds bad regardless of their source or the validity of the claim.
Click to expand...
 
BrotherofJared said:
", establishing a kingdom that will not fail (of course, Joseph didn’t do it alone, but he was not boasting of his strength, only what he accomplished in spite of all the opposition).
Click to expand...
So Smith established a kingdom that will not fail, I don’t know why but I’m always amazed at what LDS take away from Christ and lay at Smiths feet. The presumption, the disrespect, the belittling it is, I can’t find words for it.
 
BrotherofJared said:
This assumes that the Catholic church is the church Jesus founded. I don’t see the word Catholic anywhere in the New Testament. There is no evidence that early Christians were Catholic at all. Their trials are not the Catholic church’s trials.
Click to expand...
The word “catholic” means “universal”. The Catholic Church is the universal Church established by Jesus Christ. There is plenty of evidence that the early Christians were Catholic. Indeed, they believed many things rejected by Mormons, prime among them being the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Further, we find absolutely no evidence of uniquely Mormon beliefs in the ancient Christian Church. The early Christians were Catholic, not Mormon.
 
BrotherofJared said:
Except the obvious, the his accomplishments, which is what he’s pointing to. His claim that Josephs work and the growth of that work couldn’t not be produced by a deviant pervert is substantive evidence that Josephs actions have been mis-read.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Again, therefore Islam must be true too right?
 
BrotherofJared said:
Except the obvious, the his accomplishments, which is what he’s pointing to. His claim that Josephs work and the growth of that work couldn’t not be produced by a deviant pervert is substantive evidence that Josephs actions have been mis-read.
Click to expand...
So Joseph’s successful church is substantial evidence that Joseph’s actions have been mis-read? By that logic, L. Ron Hubbard’s actions have been misread in light of the worldly success of Scientology… and any other successful deviant cult one might care to mention. Worldly success is not the best barometer of character or integrity as I’m sure you’d concede.

As an aside, most of the Mormon success has occurred, by the way, as Mormonism has become more mainstream and increasingly moved far from the deviant perversions of its founder, JS and BY. I’m sure if Mormonism continued the traditions of JS and BY, even their wordily success would be limited. The Mormon fundamentalists behave in a manner more akin to JS and BY… and I doubt anyone considers these Mormon fundamentalists to be anything more than deviant cult scum.

Not a good thesis, really.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
:rolleyes: Again, therefore Islam must be true too right?
Click to expand...
Muhammad certainly has it going on in comparison to Smith 1.6 billion self identifying adherents compared to a church claimed 15 million, a number that is vastly different if people are asked to self identify.
 
BrotherofJared said:
Paul also boasted. I don’t see you shouting him down. His claim was that Jesus Christ didn’t do it, not that He couldn’t do it as you’re rendition implies.
Click to expand...
Shouting down, really? :rolleyes:

Actually, I asked if JS meant couldn’t - I guess you didn’t see that post.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Muhammad certainly has it going on in comparison to Smith 1.6 billion self identifying adherents compared to a church claimed 15 million, a number that is vastly different if people are asked to self identify.
Click to expand...
Actually it is estimated there are closer to 7 million Mormons so you are right, the Muslims must be right…that is if we are using the formula recommended by LDS posters.
 
BrotherofJared said:
These things aren’t true. These are statements that Mormon critics like to use because they add heat to their arguments. Many of them will use anything that sounds bad regardless of their source or the validity of the claim.
Click to expand...
  1. There is evidence the Danites existed. Are you saying only Mormons critics say this? If so, you are misinformed.
  2. Why did JS wear a military uniform? That is a fact, not a critical statement.
  3. He ran for president. This information is available on LDS websites so not sure how that info would be critical.
 
Bump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janderich
I think he wanted to rile up his accusers. They hounded him from every side and made false accusations. As introduction to the statement he said:
Joseph was not one to back down. I certainly can understand it.

What were the false accusations made against Joseph Smith that he was not willing to back down to?

Why do you think Jesus didn’t fight back when falsely accused?

Should a modern day prophet follow Jesus’ example?
 
BrotherofJared said:
Prove God that he didn’t command them to practice polygamy. Can’t be done.
Click to expand...
We’ve been through this before on another thread. You were unable to show where in the Bible God commanded polygamy so now you are demanding we prove a negative? Mormons claim that polygamy is a commandment of God. It is on them to prove this claim. Citing the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine & Covenants doesn’t cut it since we don’t accept the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
 
BrotherofJared said:
This assumes that the Catholic church is the church Jesus founded. I don’t see the word Catholic anywhere in the New Testament. There is no evidence that early Christians were Catholic at all. Their trials are not the Catholic church’s trials.
Click to expand...
Do you know what the word Catholic means? Do you understand any of early Christian history, of course history that hasn’t been filtered through the morman church? Jesus founded His church with His apostles and the Catholic Church can trace apostolic succession all the way back to Peter.

There is no “assumption” the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Christ founded, there are truths, documentation, facts, history and the test of over 2000 years.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Another defense of Joseph Smith comes from another branch of Mormonism, the Community of Christ (were once called RLDS). This is the group that Emma Smith associated herself to after the murder of her husband, and this group maintains to this day that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy.

Their approach is that polygamy was brought to Nauvoo by Brigham Young. That after the death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young exerted himself as the new leader of the Mormons with plural marriage a central and necessary doctrine for his followers.

The groups who renounced Young, accuse him of lying about the polygamy of Joseph Smith, of inserting section 132 into the D&C in the 1850s, and of fabricating polygamous testimony about Smith. Including testimony from women who were the wives of Young himself or of his close associates.

In essence, the defense regarding polygamy is either Smith never practiced it, and an approach that evidence that he did was fabricated. Or, that he did practice polygamy but lied for “pious” reasons. “Lying for the Lord”, being acceptable to Mormon leaders and their followers, for reasons of protecting the Mormon Church or its leaders.
Click to expand...
Well, we know that Joseph practiced it and we know that Emma knew he practiced it.
 
RebeccaJ said:
You’re welcome. 🙂

Mormon history is complex. Especially when you have different factions presenting history to suit an agenda. All Mormon offshoots of Joseph Smith do the same. I once had a Mormon tell me, after returning from Nauvoo, that “the Church” (meaning the Brighamites) needed to gain better control of the historical narrative that is being presented in Nauvoo. The RLDS have control and own most of the history there. (BTW, it was one of those times I’ve had where Mormons express what they know, without realizing themselves they know what they know.)

For myself, I see the historical facts as not so clear, on whether or not Smith viewed his affairs as marriages. Young and the apostles under Smith who followed him, obviously presented Smith as a supporter and practitioner of polygamy. (If you want to discover someone of questionable character, study up on Eliza Snow. Who knows if anything she ever said was true or not.) But then you have people of the same historical era who said he was not practicing polygamy.

Either way, he wasn’t loyal to his marriage to Emma.
Click to expand...
The representation you’ve given is just one faction telling the history to suit an agenda as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top