Joseph Smith--glass looker

  • Thread starter Thread starter edmondhall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
amgid:
You are beating a dead horse with this one. LDS missionaries re not “paid by the Church” to do missionary work. Their expenses are paid by themselves (working and saving before they go on missions), by their parents and relatives, or by members of their ward. The “purse and scrip” is not the issue under discussion here. The issue is “being paid a salary for a Church job”. And LDS missionaries are not.

amgid
Click to expand...
I didn’t bring up “purse or scrip”, you did. Do you need a nap or something?
 
I can assure you that it has never been my intent to “surprise” you.
I do not “play a part” but act according to my sincere beliefs.
I have addessed all relevant points and was only “changing the subject” back to the original question. I don’t see any “beating around the bush”. I have been quite outspoken in fact. Which accusations are slanderous [libelous] ? I have only posted what I believe is true and have provided verifiable evidence. (admittedly the meaning of many of these things depends on your paradigm).

Apostate? depends on your view of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I choose to believe that God did not abandon the church that Jesus established for 1800 years leaving all the inhabitants of the earth to wander in spiritual darkness. God has always been with us. The Father, the Son,the Holy Spirit which is one God.
 
The related question is how comfortable should LDS be with Joseph Smith’s dabbling in “magic”? Some can easily dismiss this as a case of “boys will be boys”, or Paul’s “ignorance that God winked at in times past”, “product of his times”, or “Smith’s neighbors projecting their folk beliefs onto him”. For me, I tend to like the idea that it was a “school master” of sorts or a preparatory gospel preluding the restoration. Joseph’s use of seer stones helped him develop faith in the unseen, develop spritual gifts, and helped him become more discerning as he matured. This complemented his investigation into the more established religous denominations of his area and sincere attempt to find out which to join.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing about this response is that it draws a circle around the problem of JS’s character such that there is no counterevidence to the claim that JS was a prophet. Questionable character? Well, God used it to His advantage. After all, He shows His strength in our weaknesses. If the alternative was true, and JS was a complete innocent, then of course that evidence would be trumpeted in favor of the claim that he was a prophet.

Is there any evidence, MFool and others, that would seriously give you pause and make you question whether the BOM is authentic? I mean we have a gold digger who claims the ‘restored gospel of Christ’ includes racist principles and polygamy, who fraudulently claims an Egyptian funeral papyrus is the ‘Book of Abraham’, who translates ancient golden plates using KJV phrases, who, repeating claims of the times, erroneously claims that Native Americans are semites, who claims that horses, metallurgy, wheat etc existed in a land and time when they did not exist and so forth. Perhaps this is not a fair question (if it’s not I apologize), but what evidence, hypothetically, would make you question the the authenticity of JS?

I think our minds are structured to prove our beliefs rather than question them, so I know this is a difficult question–but is the authenticity of JS really an issue that is closed and not open to reason?
 
and let them without sin cast the first stone. pick one of your early church fathers and i bet with a bit of research we could find faults.
 
paul barlow:
and let them without sin cast the first stone. pick one of your early church fathers and i bet with a bit of research we could find faults.
Click to expand...
St. Paul comes to mind.
 
There is a HUGE difference between ECFs and Joseph Smith. The whole LDS system basically stands on the question of the authenticty of JS. You could remove a church father from the equation, you could even move St. Paul, and Catholocism remains because there are a number of apostles, witnesses, gospel writers, and so forth. No gold plates, no LDS. There is no one person, save Christ Himself, upon whom the entirety of Christianity stands or falls.
 
No doubt Joseph Smith was involved in the treasure seeking folklore of his day. I get the impression that he sincerely believed in his clairvoyant abilities, hence can’t be considered a scam artist
Click to expand...
Do you really believe this, that JS believed in his clairvoyant abilties and wasn’t a gold digger (or treasure seeker)? This borders on a self delusional belief, even if you acount for the times, I think.
 
40.png
edmondhall:
There is a HUGE difference between ECFs and Joseph Smith. The whole LDS system basically stands on the question of the authenticty of JS. You could remove a church father from the equation, you could even move St. Paul, and Catholocism remains because there are a number of apostles, witnesses, gospel writers, and so forth. No gold plates, no LDS. There is no one person, save Christ Himself, upon whom the entirety of Christianity stands or falls.
Click to expand...
you seem to be missing the point look at anybody apart from the saviour and you will find faults. even the saviour was judge by the jewish leaders for breaking there law. my point is your faith is just as vunrable to attacks by us as ours is by you. the diffrence is we know our church is true. so using this thought if we can remove an early church father or saint paul then we had better look at the others as well remember only christ is perfect. or is repentance only allowed in your church teachings.
 
40.png
edmondhall:
Do you really believe this, that JS believed in his clairvoyant abilties and wasn’t a gold digger (or treasure seeker)? This borders on a self delusional belief, even if you acount for the times, I think.
Click to expand...
lets nip over to lourdes then shall we and see how your saints stand up to examination.
 
you seem to be missing the point look at anybody apart from the saviour and you will find faults
Click to expand...
OK, let’s put it this way. If you can find a comparable situation in the early history of Christianity, where someone claims to be a prophet and then makes the factual and moral errors JS does while prophesying, then you might have a point. And when you find this person in the early church, his ‘prophecies’ have to be of such importance that the entirety of my beliefs as a Catholic stand or fall on his authenticity.

Back to my question, what evidence could possibly sway you that JS is not authentic?
 
40.png
edmondhall:
OK, let’s put it this way. If you can find a comparable situation in the early history of Christianity, where someone claims to be a prophet and then makes the factual and moral errors JS does while prophesying, then you might have a point. And when you find this person in the early church, his ‘prophecies’ have to be of such importance that the entirety of my beliefs as a Catholic stand or fall on his authenticity.

Back to my question, what evidence could possibly sway you that JS is not authentic?
Click to expand...
again your last section are you saying the prophet joseph smith was authentic. i hope you were. i challege all of your views on him and state clearly that he was a prophet of god. i can see why you would want to discredit him but thats your problem not mine
 
I do not believe he was authentic. I respect your beliefs and your tenacity in defending them. I don’t doubt you would challenge my views that question his authenticity.

Maybe my question is just borne out of exasperation. Or maybe it should just be rhetorical. But I am seriously wondering where faith and reason intersect for you. Or perhaps they do not on this issue–perhaps the authenticity of JS is purely a matter of faith. I would like to know if that’s the case.
 
40.png
edmondhall:
I do not believe he was authentic. I respect your beliefs and your tenacity in defending them. I don’t doubt you would challenge my views that question his authenticity.

Maybe my question is just borne out of exasperation. Or maybe it should just be rhetorical. But I am seriously wondering where faith and reason intersect for you. Or perhaps they do not on this issue–perhaps the authenticity of JS is purely a matter of faith. I would like to know if that’s the case.
Click to expand...
oh please just because i belive a diffrent version of the truth my reason must be faulty i know this church is true through my time in the church i have gained a strong belief of joseph. if this was reversed you would find your questions odd. do you reasonably except every thing your church teaches. because i do of mine.
 
Different version of the truth? What exactly does that mean? Surely LDS don’t believe that Catholicism is a different version of the truth.
I submit that Catholicism and Mormonism are absolutely mutually exclusive regarding spiritual truth. One can NOT be true without the other being false.

I don’t think your ability to reason is being challenged here. I read the post as asking if your position is strictly “sola fide” thus rendering unnecessary any analytical “proof”. I think most non-Mormons are pretty confused by LDS apologists attempts to “prove” Mormonism true. If you don’t start from “I know this church true” you can’t get there from any analysis of theevidence. Thus the question “Do you just accept on faith?” is (I think) a valid one that most people can understand. If you honestly believe that none of “that stuff” (the various issues that LDS apologists deal with) matters because “flesh and blood have not revealed it you but My father which is in heaven” then that should change our discussion. We then end up with “proving the Spirits” to see what is from God. I do not know what process you have used for this, I can only go by own experience which has given me a firm testimony in the divine origin of the Catholic church. I tell you that God is present in the Bible, He is present in his church and miraculously he IS present in the eucharist creating a perfect communion between God and his people that I have only experienced at mass.
 
40.png
edmondhall:
Is there any evidence, MFool and others, that would seriously give you pause and make you question whether the BOM is authentic? I mean we have a gold digger who claims the ‘restored gospel of Christ’ includes racist principles and polygamy, who fraudulently claims an Egyptian funeral papyrus is the ‘Book of Abraham’, who translates ancient golden plates using KJV phrases, who, repeating claims of the times, erroneously claims that Native Americans are semites, who claims that horses, metallurgy, wheat etc existed in a land and time when they did not exist and so forth. Perhaps this is not a fair question (if it’s not I apologize), but what evidence, hypothetically, would make you question the the authenticity of JS?
Click to expand...
What you are ignoring is that religion is a matter of faith. We accept may things on faith, rather than on sight, without being able to give a rational explanation for them which would satisfy the “intellectually curious”. If you want to find this kind of fault with people, that is easy to do. Moses also killed somebody, then (ungratefully) he ran away form Pharaoh who had fostered him and raised him up, then he found a magic wand and dumbfounded all the Egyptian magicians with his magic tricks, then he went and married a slave girl in his old age and upset his brother and sister Aaron and Miriam! And guess what, I still believe that Moses was a prophet. The same goes for Joseph Smith.
I think our minds are structured to prove our beliefs rather than question them, so I know this is a difficult question–but is the authenticity of JS really an issue that is closed and not open to reason?
Click to expand...
The “authenticity of Joseph Smith” is very much an issue for an LDS. If there were no Joseph Smith, there would be no LDS Church, and no restoration of the gospel. But it is an “issue” that I for one have already “settled” for myself once for all, and I don’t need to settle it again. You settle such an issue once, not a hundred times. If it is an issue for you, that is your problem. It is not my problem. You take care of your problems, and I will look after mine.

amgid
 
40.png
amgid:
You take care of your problems, and I will look after mine.
Click to expand...
Yet you choose to come here and in effect “look after” our “problems”.

I agree with you that if JS was a false prophet then the LDS church is false. That you believe in his divine mission is not something that anyone here is attempting to settle. I do not believe it and I have settled that. Many others here can say the same. I’m not sure then what your purpose here is. Surely those who want to “find out” if JS is a true prophet would go somewhere other than Catholic Answers to find out. If you are just curious about Catholics and their beliefs then it makes perfect sense for you to come here and ask questions. What I have seen though is your persistence in promoting LDS beliefs and denying Catholic ones. This appears to be more of a “missionary” type of activity. If that is the case then wouldn’t your time and effort be better spent on an LDS site helping “investigators”? Of course maybe your more like Saul who thought his religious beliefs were “settled” and then changed his life after Jesus called him to his church.

amgid, be like Paul. Heed the call to cease persecuting Gods church and join in it’s divine ministry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top