Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[MrZetterlund]

I can not for the life of me fathom why Mormons believe so strongly about Joseph Smith being a prophet. Even when you carefully show them the flaws of Joseph Smith, they remain completely bias for him. I don’t understand it. It’s like they care more about protecting a lie then surrendering to truth. Joseph Smith is a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing. He dares to make so many believe so strongly in him, even though he himself knows he’s a liar. I believe Mormons believe the BOM because they see no more reason to not believe it than the Bible. Which shows me that their faith is weak in the Bible’s trueness. Many of us are certain there’s enough evidence to varrify what we believe.

 

[Answersplease]

Mormonism is very appealing on the surface value.

Christianity on the other hand, has to be understood more deeply in order to realize the depth of its appeal.

The Mormons are told that they will be sealed to their families in heaven.

The Christians on the other hand, understand that their families will increase to include all the members of heaven, and that the most important family member is God Himself.
The children of God will be one family with God as the Father.

I doubt that the Mormons will debate you on this thread, Joseph Smith cannot be defended, his actions combined with biblical teachings prove him to be false.

But maybe the Mormons will respond if we make more specific posts.

 

[Xavierlives]

Well you really aren’t giving them much of a bone on which to gnaw.

I’ve gone round and round with them about what I consider to be key issues and really as I see it:

They interpret the Bible differently than Christians (Quote John 1:18 and John 6:46 and then ask about JS seeing God & Jesus, and your head will be in circles from their explanation that Jesus didn’t mean what he said, he meant something completely different… oh yeah and in line with the Mormons).
They ignore experts on subjects to create new answers. (When Egyptologists show Book of Abraham says something different than JS’s “translation” they just say it doesn’t really matter, we don’t really use the book anyway. Oh yeah and 1600 years before the papyrus said one thing it really says what JS said the Book of Abraham has recorded. In my book this equates to someone finding a phonebook 1600 years from now and when “they” translate it, it ends up being a recipe for chocolate cake.)
That Joseph Smith changed the Bible to fit Mormonism (they won’t always acknowledge these, but there places throughout the Bible, where JS changed the “translation” to fit his religion).

 

[Answersplease]

That Joseph Smith changed the Bible to fit Mormonism (they won’t always acknowledge these, but there places throughout the Bible, where JS changed the “translation” to fit his religion).

Will you please list the changes, I’m curious about them.

 

[ParkerD]

…Oh yeah and 1600 years before the papyrus said one thing it really says what JS said the Book of Abraham has recorded. In my book this equates to someone finding a phonebook 1600 years from now and when “they” translate it, it ends up being a recipe for chocolate cake.)…

Hi, Xavierlives,
Did you notice that Mr Zetterlund is age 16? (Hi, Jared.) The phone book analogy could actually take you and him somewhere interesting. You’re talking about the religious beliefs of a group who says, for example, “See–this particular god was “Zeus”–we can tell because we have the translation a thousand years later for this particular symbol on this particular papyrus.” Another person looking at a different “phone book” from 500 years difference in time might say, “No–that symbol was for the god “Jupiter”–we can tell because of that same symbol from this other time frame.” And they could both be just as wrong and not know it because they are not talking to the people of the original point in time, and religious ceremonies and language and customs and names CHANGE over time, based on the whims of whoever is in charge at any particular point in time.

So, yes, the phone book could really be an analogy you could use to show that names change over time, people change, customs change, beliefs change–it happens. It happened, for example, to the people who lived at the time of Daniel whom he associated with. Check it out. Read the Book of Daniel.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Well you really aren’t giving them much of a bone on which to gnaw.

I actually just wrote this out of concern and agravation. I don’t really think I was looking to argue. There’s no point in arguing, I believe they already know they’re wrong.

Hi, Xavierlives,
Did you notice that Mr Zetterlund is age 16? (Hi, Jared.)

Hello.

The phone book analogy could actually take you and him somewhere interesting. You’re talking about the religious beliefs of a group who says, for example, “See–this particular god was “Zeus”–we can tell because we have the translation a thousand years later for this particular symbol on this particular papyrus.” Another person looking at a different “phone book” from 500 years difference in time might say, “No–that symbol was for the god “Jupiter”–we can tell because of that same symbol from this other time frame.” And they could both be just as wrong and not know it because they are not talking to the people of the original point in time, and religious ceremonies and language and customs and names CHANGE over time, based on the whims of whoever is in charge at any particular point in time.

So, yes, the phone book could really be an analogy you could use to show that names change over time, people change, customs change, beliefs change–it happens. It happened, for example, to the people who lived at the time of Daniel whom he associated with. Check it out. Read the Book of Daniel.

I actually posted a very detailed report in a thread about the “book of Abraham” in a thread entitled “Mormons… Seriously… Why?”
It’s sort of funny actually, because of Mormonism, that particular peace of papyre is always going to be known as Joseph Smith’s “Lost Book of Abraham” even though it’s about something completely different. Parker, the god recorded on “the lost book of Abraham” is the egyptian god Horus. Horus is known as the god of ressurection. As the hyraglyphs (however you spell that) show you. But reguardless of what god it is, or what his name is, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a completely different story than an angry pharroh going after Abraham. And this “CHANGE of interpritation” you’re speaking of isn’t based off of whims and guesses of some pointy-headed know it all. Egyptian is now legible and understandable because of the Rosetta Stone.

 

[Answersplease]

Yes, and it was very convenient for Joseph Smith to claim the right to change doctrine to whatever suited him. If he wanted to have sex with his neighbor’s wife, he would simply declare that it was now allowed. And if her husband complained, he placated them by promising that by allowing it, the entire family would be made Gods. And it he needed money, he would declare that it was God’s will that his followers buy shares in his bank. Life is very convenient when you make your own rules.
…

Peter’s situation is very different. He was an apostle of Christ, handpicked to lead the church, When he had the revelation that Gentiles could also be Christians, it was accompanied the Holy spirit coming upon Cornelius’ household, allowing them to speak in tongues, as proof of its divine inspiration. I wonder what sign Joseph Smith was able to show that proved that God now supported adultery?

 

[Answersplease]

No Salvation Without Joseph Smith

mrm.org/no-salvation-without-joseph-smith

…Joseph Fielding Smith, Mormonism’s tenth president, went on record as saying that there is “no salvation without Joseph Smith.” (Doctrine of Salvation 1:189).

In his article entitled “Joseph Smith Among the Prophets” printed in the June 1994 issue of “Ensign” magazine, Mormon writer Robert L. Millet quoted second LDS Prophet Brigham Young, who, in 1859, stated, “From the day that the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up things of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are – I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent” (Journal of Discourses 7:238. See also Search These Commandments, 1984, pg. 133).

 

[Lapey]

Answersplease:
Wow…

So, let me get this straight, it doesn’t matter what Jesus did, it matters what john smith did much latter. Ok now I have my facts straight.

I could have sworn I read somewhere that it only matters what Jesus did. Can someone please give me a hand here i am completely confused now.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Will you please list the changes, I’m curious about them.

They are all under the “Inspired Version” written by Joseph Smith. The Mormon Church has never used it though, from what I understand.

At any rate, the major flaw in Joseph Smith’s claim to be a prophet is his very story. The story that he went into the wood and God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him is absolutely preposterous, principally because the Bible tells us several times that God the Father cannot be seen.

Additionally, his assertion that an angel gave him the Book of Mormon must also be scrutinized. Especially since Paul in Galatians 1:8-9 rejects the instruction of any new gospel, even if from an angel.

I would dare say that Joseph Smith certainly saw something, but if he read his Bible a little more he would know better than to trust what he saw. Clearly, whatever revelation he obtained, it was from something ungodly, and as we know, Satan masquerades himself as an angel of light.

 

[peeteyg]

God is the Alpha and Omega. In him and written thru him contains the beginning and the end. He made our beginnings known thru Genesis and he made the end known thru Revelation. Contained in the Bible is all we need to know concerning our salvation and the end which must happen. Revelation pretty much sums up the OT and NT and says how it will end and in the end of revelation it has a warning not to add to the Book Of Revelation. I think the BOM because it was written after the Apocalypse of John (97-100 AD) it falls under the warning not to add so I wholesale reject it.

 

[ParkerD]

God is the Alpha and Omega. In him and written thru him contains the beginning and the end. He made our beginnings known thru Genesis and he made the end known thru Revelation. Contained in the Bible is all we need to know concerning our salvation and the end which must happen. Revelation pretty much sums up the OT and NT and says how it will end and in the end of revelation it has a warning not to add to the Book Of Revelation. I think the BOM because it was written after the Apocalypse of John (97-100 AD) it falls under the warning not to add so I wholesale reject it.

Peeteyg,
It would seem you have already changed or rejected the Book of Revelation, by the way, since as we noted in a conversation recently about the key of David, you choose to ignore that John wrote specifically the words (speaking in the words of Christ who is Alpha and Omega): “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” (Revelation 1:18) and the words: “These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;” (Revelation 3:7) also ignoring the words of Isaiah 22:22 by changing the meaning to mean Peter rather than understanding that clearly both of those passages are a prophecy about Christ, as confirmed by John the Revelator in Revelation 3:7.

The Book of Revelation also says an angel will “fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,” (Revelation 14:6), so since you evidently don’t believe that either since if an angel brings the everlasting gospel and it gets written down then it would be scripture since it was sent from God–then I suggest that you really don’t believe the Book of Revelation after all.

The Bible often has symbolic meaning rather than literal “face value” meaning. It can be understood more deeply than on the surface. For example, Ezekiel 37:15-28 talks about the restoration of the everlasting covenant to the descendants of “Judah and his companions” (the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and their companions) and the descendants of “Joseph and his companions” (the ten tribes including Ephraim and Manasseh and their companions) through the means of “one stick” that is a symbolic united stick in the hands of God that brings about this uniting and this understanding of the everlasting covenant. By rejecting outright the Book of Mormon, you merely show that the words about those descendants of the twelve tribes and of Abraham, and about the Gentiles who are also offered the everlasting covenant (see Isaiah 56:6-8 and many other Isaiah passages), have not impressed you with a desire to figure out what those Biblical prophecies meant.

Have a good day.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Peeteyg,
It would seem you have already changed or rejected the Book of Revelation, by the way, since as we noted in a conversation recently about the key of David, you choose to ignore that John wrote specifically the words (speaking in the words of Christ who is Alpha and Omega): “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” (Revelation 1:18) and the words: “These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;” (Revelation 3:7) also ignoring the words of Isaiah 22:22 by changing the meaning to mean Peter rather than understanding that clearly both of those passages are a prophecy about Christ, as confirmed by John the Revelator in Revelation 3:7.

Does Revelations mention the keys to the kingdom of heaven? No, He had already given those keys to Peter, with the authority to bind and loose; shut and open.

The Book of Revelation also says an angel will “fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,” (Revelation 14:6), so since you evidently don’t believe that either since if an angel brings the everlasting gospel and it gets written down then it would be scripture since it was sent from God–then I suggest that you really don’t believe the Book of Revelation after all.

But, according to Mormons, the angel ONLY spoke to Joseph Smith, not to them that dwell on the earth and to every nation, kindred, and tongue, and people.

The Bible often has symbolic meaning rather than literal “face value” meaning. It can be understood more deeply than on the surface. For example, Ezekiel 37:15-28 talks about the restoration of the everlasting covenant to the descendants of “Judah and his companions” (the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and their companions) and the descendants of “Joseph and his companions” (the ten tribes including Ephraim and Manasseh and their companions) through the means of “one stick” that is a symbolic united stick in the hands of God that brings about this uniting and this understanding of the everlasting covenant. By rejecting outright the Book of Mormon, you merely show that the words about those descendants of the twelve tribes and of Abraham, and about the Gentiles who are also offered the everlasting covenant (see Isaiah 56:6-8 and many other Isaiah passages), have not impressed you with a desire to figure out what those Biblical prophecies meant.

Have a good day.

The Biblical prophecies are about Him who fullfilled the prophecies.

 

[ralphinal]

Set aside all of the issues you may have with the LDS faith. Set aside everything you know aout Joseph Smith. Set all that aside for one second. And, if you are Mormon, set that aside, too.

Now, in the most non-specific terms possible, why should ANYONE accept anything that anyone else said was told to them by God or an Angel when no one else was told the same thing?

 

[RebeccaJ]

They are all under the “Inspired Version” written by Joseph Smith. The Mormon Church has never used it though, from what I understand.

The JST of Matthew is in their Pearl of Great Price. Also, their publication of the KJV is annotated to the JST.

 

[peeteyg]

I also reject the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas and many others authored by heretics. Everyone pretty much accepts the churchs’ authority to discern what is inspired by god and what is not. The New Testament stands as a testament to this.

 

[Catholic_to_LDS]

ok…I’ll step out on a limb. Since joining this forum, I have been able to “see” my doubts about the LDS church. Could someone show me why I shouldn’t believe in JS…but explain why I should believe that Jesus and Mary are ok to be seen by “good” catholics.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ok…I’ll step out on a limb. Since joining this forum, I have been able to “see” my doubts about the LDS church. Could someone show me why I shouldn’t believe in JS…but explain why I should believe that Jesus and Mary are ok to be seen by “good” catholics.

What do you mean ‘see’ your doubts? What do you mean Jesus and Mary are ‘ok’ to be seen?

 

[Tmaque]

It really all comes down to one question. Can you prove that the Catholic Church lost it’s authority? If it didn’t then Joseph Smith was either deceived by Satan or was a liar. I happen to believe he was deceived by Satan because he was fooling around with witchcraft before the first vision. This is well documented in “Rough Stone Rolling”. If you think the Catholic Church did lose it’s authority you had better be sure about it, your very salvation may depend on it. However, I honestly don’t see how an objective person could come to that conclusion.

 

[RebeccaJ]

What do you mean ‘see’ your doubts? What do you mean Jesus and Mary are ‘ok’ to be seen?

When faith is built on JS and that falls, everything can fall with it.