What Joseph Smith got right...

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnakeMauler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SnakeMauler

Guest
Now, this is very strange, but I’m going to give Joseph Smith credit. Though he came up with a million things with complete disregard and/or apathy to historical reality, Joseph Smith did recognize some basic things of what makes Christianity ‘true’, albeit in a bizarre and unusual way. For example, he recognized that what gives a group credibility/authority is apostolic succession. Of course, he did claim to obtain it in a weird way, like the whole thing about John the Baptist materializing out of thin air and baptizing it (though I’m unsure as to weather this is the moment when he officially received “Apostolic Succession” or simply the "Aaronic Priesthood). He didn’t even come up with some halfassed effort to say that he found some bible verse that no one saw for over a thousand years proved “once saved, always saved” or that “we’re all priests”. He claimed to have apostolic authority. And to me, that’s way more credible than people who’s authority comes from “believing”. He made a genuine effort to fabricate “another testament of Jesus Christ”, and, it’s so simple it’s genius the logic behind what justifies it- we say he plagiarized a lot of it, but he just says that Jesus founded a “parallel” Church in America and that ancient American prophets received similar stuff, which is genius! Of course, I don’t see where he had to put in all these polytheistic elements and masonic stuff and inferior black people and all this other stuff. But hey, he even took these old Egyptian drawings and somehow applied them to his agenda (see: scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_1 ) I mean, so he even got all ancient and scholarly even though there’s a huge difference between Egyptian stuff and Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek stuff. So, in conclusion, Joseph Smith was half simpleton genius, half… something else:blush:

Kudos to Mormons out there. Just be a bit more well rounded than these guys: youtube.com/watch?v=uFzQheN1kLU

-Snakemauler
 
Joseph Smith’s “vision” of “Zion” the Kingdom of God in the here and now was a great insight into the message of Jesus.

That God still speaks to us today…He is not confined to a book or a specific ecclesisial community…but is present in our world and speaks to each of us.

Because I too believe God works through each of us in His own way…I do enjoy reading some of Joseph’s insights in the Book of Mormon and the D&C at times…I disagree with him on many things…but on some things our beliefs do touch.
 
Joseph Smith fabricated a wild story in order to gain worldly power and sexual favors. The whole story is tragic, hilarious and entertaining but it is hard to call Joseph Smith a genius. He was a charlatan who focused on simple people and was very keen at exploiting their weaknesses.
 
Joseph Smith fabricated a wild story in order to gain worldly power and sexual favors. The whole story is tragic, hilarious and entertaining but it is hard to call Joseph Smith a genius. He was a charlatan who focused on simple people and was very keen at exploiting their weaknesses.
👍
 
This is good! 👍 The mormon faith is just a large corporation that buys alot of land, takes all your money and when you need it, it doesnt come back. And how many churches actually keep records of who DOESNT pay tithings? They send a few people to your home and ask why they havent received your tithings? Or they send the crippled children out on Sundays to collect tithings. Im not making this up, ive seen it myself. But, to each his own I guess.
 
That God still speaks to us today…He is not confined to a book or a specific ecclesisial community…but is present in our world and speaks to each of us.
I’ve never met any Christian who would disagree the bolded part.
 
Now, this is very strange, but I’m going to give Joseph Smith credit. Though he came up with a million things with complete disregard and/or apathy to historical reality, Joseph Smith did recognize some basic things of what makes Christianity ‘true’, albeit in a bizarre and unusual way. For example, he recognized that what gives a group credibility/authority is apostolic succession. Of course, he did claim to obtain it in a weird way, like the whole thing about John the Baptist materializing out of thin air and baptizing it (though I’m unsure as to weather this is the moment when he officially received “Apostolic Succession” or simply the "Aaronic Priesthood). He didn’t even come up with some halfassed effort to say that he found some bible verse that no one saw for over a thousand years proved “once saved, always saved” or that “we’re all priests”. He claimed to have apostolic authority. And to me, that’s way more credible than people who’s authority comes from “believing”. He made a genuine effort to fabricate “another testament of Jesus Christ”, and, it’s so simple it’s genius the logic behind what justifies it- we say he plagiarized a lot of it, but he just says that Jesus founded a “parallel” Church in America and that ancient American prophets received similar stuff, which is genius! Of course, I don’t see where he had to put in all these polytheistic elements and masonic stuff and inferior black people and all this other stuff. But hey, he even took these old Egyptian drawings and somehow applied them to his agenda (see: scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_1 ) I mean, so he even got all ancient and scholarly even though there’s a huge difference between Egyptian stuff and Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek stuff. So, in conclusion, Joseph Smith was half simpleton genius, half… something else:blush:

Kudos to Mormons out there. Just be a bit more well rounded than these guys: youtube.com/watch?v=uFzQheN1kLU

-Snakemauler
I agree.

I also am surprised at the dislike of the LDS displayed on this forum sometimes. Surely we can be more charitable to our (pagan) brethren.

Joseph Smith identified problems: widely varying interpretations of the Bible, all without a single, easily recognizable authority granted by God to vouchsafe the deposit of faith, and all the issues associated with that.

That’s why I chose Rome. I investigated Mormonism for a while. I have many LDS friends and I am very fond of them and of their religion. Joseph Smith was a genius, he was very intelligent, and not entirely evil - although yes, he did do some evil things, such as his use of plural marriage to gain sexual access to the young women in his sect and the wives of his friends.

However, he pointed out what eventually lead me to the Holy Roman Church. I also investigated Orthodoxy, briefly, although what really turned me off was the widely varying viewpoints within it, even on important points like contraception. Unity without the Holy Roman Bishop was obviously impossible.

Mormonism has no claim to being the Apostolic Church. There are only five churches that can claim it: The Catholic Church, the (Eastern) Orthodox Church, the (Oriental) Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and Mormonism.

Why Mormonism? They’re the only church that claims to be the church of the apostles other than the four preceding it.

However, clearly, they cannot be. Joseph Smith was not a prophet. The Book of Mormon is not another testament of Jesus Christ. The idea that God forsook his church to restore it many years later is ridiculous. She has safely come these two thousands years to our present day.

But yes, Joseph Smith was correct to point out the major deficiencies of American Protestantism. We have all come to learn for ourselves that Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, Methodism, Quakerism, Millerism, etc., are not true. There has to be one religion that is true, one interpretation that is correct, otherwise God’s promise not to abandon us is void.

The Mormons claim it is theirs, and you may find out with the burning in your bosom. We claim that the historical evidence invalidates them and proves that the Catholic Church is the church of the apostles. Since there are competing Mormon sects who all claim that you can invoke Moroni’s promise to discern their truth, clearly, Moroni’s promise is void.
  1. And I promise thee that if ye ask if this book be not true, and roll a pair of dice with a sincere heart, and desire exceedingly for the book to be true, yea, the dice shall reveal the truthfulness of this book unto thee.
  1. And if ye roll a seven, yea, it doth mean this book be a true book, and ye shall rejoice at the knowledge of the truthfulness of this book. For no learned man shall sway thy opinion with supposed evidences against this book, for once the dice have spoken the debate is over.
  1. And if ye roll not a seven, yea, fear not that this book be not true, for this book is true, yea, even do I promise.
  1. And something that is true cannot be proven untrue. Wherefore, if ye roll not a seven, it be not the fault of this book, and it doth prove not that this book be untrue, because this book is true, wherefore, it cannot be proven untrue.
  1. Wherefore, if ye roll not a seven it was an error, and ye must roll the dice again, yea, even with a more sincere heart, and even desiring more to know the truth.
  1. And if ye again roll not a seven, and if ye roll not a seven three times, yea, it be the fault of the dice. Wherefore, retrieve different dice, and roll again.
  1. And ye must keep rolling dice until ye roll seven. And after the manner in which ye roll a seven, behold, ye shall rejoice at thy knowledge of the truthfulness of this book.
  1. And I bear witness unto thee that ye shall know this book is true through the dice.
 
🤷🤷🤷🤷
Hello to all… I agree it "Joseph Smith fabricated a wild story in order to gain worldly power and sexual favors. The whole story is tragic, hilarious and entertaining but it is hard to call Joseph Smith a genius. He was a charlatan who focused on simple people and was very keen at exploiting their weaknesses…Thanks lot…
 
I also am surprised at the dislike of the LDS displayed on this forum sometimes. Surely we can be more charitable to our (pagan) brethren.
I’ve noticed this too. I assume it is because Mormonism is sort of like the fat religion at the schoolyard because the whole Joseph Smith story is such an obvious fabrication.
 
Hey, I noticed the hostility too, thats why I was pointing out what I think he got right.
 
Hey, I noticed the hostility too, thats why I was pointing out what I think he got right.
To me there is always a “sign” that accompanies those who have a strong witness or testimony/knowledge of the truth. There is a peace that accompanies them; no hint of anger or needing to argue; a love of others; and patience when dealing with others from different churches or faiths. 1 Cor 13 comes primarily to mind to describe this way of being.

I have been a student of religion for decades and I rejoice in Christ and his love for us. I relish the Communion of Saints and the fraternity we share with all those who follow Christ in all his teachings.

We have no need to argue, we have not need to cast epithets at others, and we have no need to condemn. Through us the Holy Spirit is able to touch who we come into contact WHEN we are acting as his instrument. The moment we are an instrument of anger or abuse in any way of others, we cease to be instruments of the Holy Spirit at that moment.

During my studies I have met so many people from so many different churches and religions that exemplify Christ. They appear as true disciples of the One Holy One of Israel. I leave all judgment to God and trust that his mercy and wisdom will be felt by all that are judged of him.

I pray that I may be a calm voice of truth; one who plants seeds that the Holy Spirit will harvest according to the Will of the Father. I pray that I may always turn the other cheek and when another crosses my path badly. I pray that the spirit of penitence will always guide my prayers, words, and actions. Walk in light in truth; let us be the Light on the hill and shine forth the light God has given us. His peace be with you always,
 
We have no need to argue, we have not need to cast epithets at others, **and we have no **need to condemn. Through us the Holy Spirit is able to touch who we come into contact WHEN we are acting as his instrument. The moment we are an instrument of anger or abuse in any way of others, we cease to be instruments of the Holy Spirit at that moment.
Maybe you don’t have the need to condemn other faiths, but this Mormons prophet/seer/revelator didn’t see it that way:

LDS Church Publication “The Seer,” January, 1854. No. 1., Page 204-206

DOCTRINE QUESTIONS

Q. Have the Roman Catholics authority to baptize?
A. No: for they have no inspired Apostles and Prophets among them: neither have they any new revelations, and without these things no one ever was or ever can be called to the ministry?

Q. Is the Roman Catholic Church the Church of Christ?
A. No: for she has no inspired priesthood or officers, without which the Church of Christ never did nor never can exist.

Q. How long since the Roman Catholic Church lost the authority and ceased to be the Church of Christ?
A. She never had authority, and never was the Church of Christ; and consequently she could not lose that which she never was in possession of.

Q. If the Roman Catholics are not the Church of Christ, where has the Church of Christ existed since inspired men ceased from the earth:
A. She has existed in heaven where the gates of hell never can prevail against her, because she is built upon the rock; and the inspired Apostles are in heaven with her whom the Saviour promised to be with always, even unto the end of the world.

Q. What has become of the Apostles’ successors?
A. The Apostles had no successors after those died off who were called by inspiration and new revelation.

Q. After the Church of Christ fled from earth to heaven, what was left?
A. A set of wicked Apostates, murderers, and idolaters, who, after having made war with the saints, and overcome them, and destroyed them out of the earth, were left to follow the wicked imaginations of their own corrupt hearts, and to build up churches by human authority, and to follow after the cunning craftiness of uninspired men; having no Apostle, Prophet, or Revelator to inquire of God for them: and thus, because of wickedness, the Church, and Priesthood, and gifts, and ordinances and blessings of the everlasting Gospel, were taken from the earth, and reserved in heaven until the fulness of times, when it was predicted that they should again be restored among men to continue until the end should come.

Q. Who founded the Roman Catholic Church?
A. The Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God by denying immediate revelation, and substituting in the place thereof, tradition and ancient revelations as a sufficient rule of faith and practice.

Q. Did the great Protestant Reformers restore the Church of Christ to the earth?
A. No: for they had no inspired Apostles, Prophets, or Revelators among them, without which the Church could not be restored.

Q. But did not any of the Protestant Reformers have authority to Baptize and Confirm?
A. Not any of them: for they pretended that ancient revelation was a sufficient rule of faith; and, therefore, that no new revelation was needed: and without new revelation no man could be called and authorized to administer Gospel ordinances.

Q. But did not the first Protestant Reformers receive their ordination and authority from the Catholics?
A. Yes: and in this manner they received all the authority that their mother church was in possession of; and the mother having derived her authority from the Devil, could only impart that which his Satanic majesty was pleased to bestow upon her. If thorns could bear figs–if a bitter fountain could send forth sweet water–or a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit, then the whore of Babylon could confer divine authority upon her harlot daughters. But whatever authority the mother might have pretended to confer upon the daughters, she afterwards was very careful to take from them by excommunication. Therefore, unless the Reformers received fresh authority from heaven by new revelation, they had no authority at all.

Q. Are all the Baptisms administered by the Catholics and Protestants, and the different sects which have, from time to time, dissented from them, illegal, because the ministers were not authorized?
A. They are, every one of them, illegal, and null, and void, and without effect; and will not be considered baptism in the day of judgment any more than the acts of unauthorized men in human governments are considered legal.

Q. Was not the Protestant Reformation a great benefit to the world?
A. Yes: it served to weaken the power of the mother church, and produced a great division in Satan’s kingdom–the mother being opposed to her harlot daughters, and the daughters against their most abominable mother: and in this family war, the harlot daughters became also sorely displeased with each other. And in the midst of the contending elements, wise men became convinced that the civil government could not safely be entrusted with any of the contending parties: hence arose governments supporting religious freedom: whereas, if it had not been for the divisions in Satan’s kingdom, freedom of conscience would have been wholly unknown in the nineteenth century. The iron yoke of Romanism would have sorely galled the necks of all nations upon whom she had power to place it. It was to weaken this corrupt, soul-destroying power; and to stir up contention, division, and war in all her borders, preparatory to the establishment of religious liberty, that God moved upon the hearts of the great Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century.

How can faithful Mormons today honestly claim that their church and God not not have issues with the Catholic church?!
 
Maybe you don’t have the need to condemn other faiths, but this Mormons prophet/seer/revelator didn’t see it that way:

LDS Church Publication “The Seer,” January, 1854. No. 1., Page 204-206

How can faithful Mormons today honestly claim that their church and God not not have issues with the Catholic church?!
I believe my counsel applies to all; most of all to myself. I could not care less what a Mormon leader says, or an Anglican priest, or anyone else that has no ecclesiastical authority over me. The actions of others does not affect my faith in God and his Church.

I do find it odd that you would go back to a document printed in 1854 to condemn Mormons. Have you done any historical research and read some of the documents printed by the Holy Catholic Church? Again, every time one condemns another religion thinking themselves superior, they will find out their own faith has done much worse.

What I consistently try to encourage is to let the Spirit of Christ speak! We have no need to condemn because they condemn themselves. Our need is to something different. I am fatigued by each of those few participants that cannot let it go, seem committed to follow another Master or at least confused to the point they don’t know what their Master would have them do. I bleed that Mother Church must continue to endure our poor examples and I am so very grateful that Christ has paid for all our sins.

I will seek out truth where ever it lies and praise God that he is the Father of all truth. Why is that such an onerous thing?
 
You know what Joseph Smith got right? Mormons are among the sweetest, most moral, and some of nicest people in the world. People that march with us for tradtional marriage , are pro-life, pro-family, and would give you the shirt off their back. That all counts for something, regardless of what anyone says.
 
I believe my counsel applies to all; most of all to myself. I could not care less what a Mormon leader says, or an Anglican priest, or anyone else that has no ecclesiastical authority over me. The actions of others does not affect my faith in God and his Church.

You do not belong to a church? No one has authority over you? Are you under the authority of anything?

I do find it odd that you would go back to a document printed in 1854 to condemn Mormons. Have you done any historical research and read some of the documents printed by the Holy Catholic Church? Again, every time one condemns another religion thinking themselves superior, they will find out their own faith has done much worse.

I find it odd that you would think a Catholic would not bring up Mormon history - that is what is all about, my friend, the history of a church. Please cite documents by the Holy Catholic Church condemning Mormonism. I am not saying any religion is superior, I am responding to your comment that there is no need to condemn. I am also assuming that you are somehow affiliated with the Mormons. Many posters come on here with religions such as “happy go lucky” etc pretending to be seeking, but they have turned out to be mormon.

What I consistently try to encourage is to let the Spirit of Christ speak! We have no need to condemn because they condemn themselves. Our need is to something different. I am fatigued by each of those few participants that cannot let it go, seem committed to follow another Master or at least confused to the point they don’t know what their Master would have them do. I bleed that Mother Church must continue to endure our poor examples and I am so very grateful that Christ has paid for all our sins.

What is this talk of condemning? So…all religions are okay? It is okay for one religion to send out tens of thousands of missionaries claiming that the CC is wrong, but if we stand up to that we are condemning? Fat Chance! I am not going to fall into that line of thinking. We are here to debate religion - if you can’t handle it then don’t do it.
My Master wants me to defend the Church that He Himself started 2,000 years ago against religions that claim it was started by the devil. If the shoe fits…

I will seek out truth where ever it lies and praise God that he is the Father of all truth. Why is that such an onerous thing?
Who says you shouldn’t seek out truth? But please don’t come here claiming that the Mormons don’t condemn or don’t have a history of bashing other faiths. Remember, the internet has lots of info that can counter that information.
 
You know what Joseph Smith got right? Mormons are among the sweetest, most moral, and some of nicest people in the world. People that march with us for tradtional marriage , are pro-life, pro-family, and would give you the shirt off their back. That all counts for something, regardless of what anyone says.
I am so glad you have had that experience with them. Not everyone has.

Yes, it is complicated. They are pro-life (in most cases) and pro-family, however it is because they are providing mortal bodies for the spirits floating around waiting to come to earth to earn their stripes. It is not the same way at looking life and family…therefore it is very complicated indeed.

I don’t know too many here in Utah that would say the Mormons would give you the shirt off their back…

Let us not forget our differences. You (LDS) want everyone to believe that the CC is wrong and that my friend, is a fact. And, it is not okay to brush over this in order to try and win converts.

Jesus Christ established His Church 2,000 years ago and the Mormons should not try to tear it down and say that It did not survive. That is wrong, Wrong, WRONG.
 
Now, this is very strange, but I’m going to give Joseph Smith credit. Though he came up with a million things with complete disregard and/or apathy to historical reality, Joseph Smith did recognize some basic things of what makes Christianity ‘true’, albeit in a bizarre and unusual way. For example, he recognized that what gives a group credibility/authority is apostolic succession. Of course, he did claim to obtain it in a weird way, like the whole thing about John the Baptist materializing out of thin air and baptizing it (though I’m unsure as to weather this is the moment when he officially received “Apostolic Succession” or simply the "Aaronic Priesthood).
First, the earliest accounts (found in various journals and the 1833 Book of Commandments) make no mention of angels or resurrected first century apostles. The earliest accounts state that the Holy Spirit led Joseph Smith to baptize and bless Oliver Cowdery, who then returned the favor. **This was the source of the apostolic and priesthood blessings – not angels or resurrected apostles. One of the three witnesses, David Whitmer, later said that it wasn’t until 1834 or 1835 that he first heard the story **include any mention of angelic visitation. Grant H. Palmer, a BYU graduate and three-time director of the LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah, confirms that the earliest accounts are devoid of any mention of angelic visitation. His theory? “It may be more than a coincidence that in February 1835 when the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was organized, the detail regarding Peter, James, and John was added to the revelations. It was sometime between January and May 1835 that Peter, James, and John were first mentioned as the restorers of apostolic keys to Joseph and Oliver. This new link of succession undoubtedly bolstered President Smith’s and Assistant President Cowdery’s authority in the eyes of the new Quorum of the Twelve and the church.”[1]

There’s another problem with this scenario, aside from the later addition of the official account. The LDS Church is adamant that the true church would have the structure of the original church, at least with regards to having twelve apostles (we’ll ignore the fact that the first century church has no first presidency, Quorum of the Seventy, or stake presidencies). The tenth Mormon Prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, wrote: “Christ chose twelve men and conferred upon them the apostleship, and these twelve men constituted the only Council of Apostles in the Church in that day, and there is but one Council of Apostles in the Church today. These twelve men are endowed with the power and responsibility to serve as the special witnesses for Christ” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 146). However, through a mistaken interpretation of John 21:22 (and a complete ignorance of verse 23), Joseph Smith wrote Doctrine and Covenants section 7, which states that the Lord Jesus Christ told John the Beloved explicitly that he would “tarry” until Jesus returns again. If D&C 7 is true, then the Apostle John is still on the scene. If the LDS Church is true, and D&C 7 is true, then that puts the apostle count at thirteen! The situation gets worse though. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus promises three Nephite apostles that they too will tarry until Jesus returns (3 Nephi 28). This passage states that these Nephite apostles were “translated” but continue to “minister” among men. If we add these three into the pot of Apostles, we find the count has risen to sixteen! This is a far cry from the twelve apostles in whom the LDS Church takes such pride.

So Joseph Smith didn’t get it right. Unless, Oliver Cowdery is really John the Baptist. Oh, heck, don’t pay attention to the details, it takes all the fun out of it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top