Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[lax16]

All christians follow the teachings of Paul as found in the new testament. Paul was also a revolutiionary as he preached among the pagans and gave direction for the church. Most of catholic moral code is based on Paul as is Mormon moral code. Mormons do not follow Joseph Smith but they do believe that he was a prophet.

I know all about Paul. Don’t twist things around.
Your church is based upon Joseph Smith and his ever-changing teachings. Belief in him is essential for membership.
Our church is based upon Jesus Christ and His Truth that never changes.

 

[why_me]

I know all about Paul. Don’t twist things around.
Your church is based upon Joseph Smith and his ever-changing teachings. Belief in him is essential for membership.
Our church is based upon Jesus Christ and His Truth that never changes.

Not true at all. The mormons would say that the lds church is founded on the teaching of Christ because it is christ’s church.

 

[lax16]

Not true at all. The mormons would say that the lds church is founded on the teaching of Christ because it is christ’s church.

When did Jesus ever teach about polygamy, gun fights, bedding other men’s wives, and that His church would fall into apostasy?

Those are the makings of a church a la Joseph Smith.

As I have asked before, list some Christ-like qualities of JS.

 

[ralphinal]

It still comes back to an understanding that there is no reason to follow any private revelation that any one human gives us. If it was not important enough to be directly from Jesus through the Apostles then protected by the Holy Spirit until now, it is not important

 

[dianaiad]

But when a Catholic makes statements, supporting Catholicism which happens to be against Mormonism, it’s being a ‘masochist’?

Nope. for one thing, As Mr. Z reminded me, he’s not a Catholic. For another thing, I didn’t say that defending one’s own faith is being a masochist. (though come to think of it, on some levels it could be…of course, that makes us ALL masochists on some level. ). I told Mr. Z that claiming that he did not enjoy 'tearing Mormonism down" meant that either he was telling an untruth, or else he was a masochist who enjoyed not enjoying himself. I generally distrust ‘this hurts me more than it hurts you’ claims.

This is a ‘subforum’ of a Catholic forum and Catholics are not restricted from defending Catholicism here, as it seems you would like it to be.

I am aware. The forum rules are quite clear about this; we non-Catholics are prohibited from disparaging or mocking Catholicism. Catholics are not prohibited from doing the same to non-Cathlic faiths.

In fact, these ‘subforums’ are unlike any Mormon forum, in that much is allowed here from non-Catholics, that would not similarily be accepted on a Mormon forum from Catholics.

Odd, having been in many, MANY, “Mormon” forums, I would say precisely the opposite. For instance, were you aware that on usenet alt.religion.mormon was begun by a couple of non-Mormons because they wanted to get discussions about Mormonism out of the alt.religion.christian venue—and when they petitioned for the new newsgroup, there was so much opposition to allowing them in under the alt.religion.christian.mormon status, that they had to go in under alt.religion.mormon? The same thing happened with the moderated soc.religion.mormon newsgroup…and I know about that one because I was one of the people who got that one started–and was a moderator on it for the first year. I can tell you right now that non-Mormons get a LOT more freedom to say what they want to than Mormons do.

…and if you think that Mormons and non-Mormons have equal freedom to mock or say unkind things here on CAF, then you haven’t been paying ANY attention.

That said, I happen to agree with the policies on CAF. It is a Catholic forum, and should absolutely be run in a way that favors Catholicism. You guys don’t get a break anywhere else, just as Mormons don’t get a break anywhere else. We all need homes (debate forums) where we can control what guests are allowed to do.

It’s just as proper for a Catholic to make such statements, in the spirit of debate, and is not being a ‘masochist’. It allows us to correct errors about what our beliefs are.

Well, I wasn’t calling you, or any other Catholic, a masochist for defending your faith. I was insinuating that Mr. Z might be one because he claimed that he didn’t enjoy tearing MY faith down. After all, what DOES one call someone who enjoys what he claims not to enjoy doing?

 

[dianaiad]

Settles what? That all non-Catholics believe the Church is somewhat ‘apostate’? Why not start a thread and ask all non-Catholics here what they think Mormonism is?

I think you need to read the thread. You have jumped into a discussion that, I think, you don’t see the point of.

It’s about Mr. Z telling me that Mormons don’t actually believe what they say they do; in effect, telling us that we are all liars and hypocrites because we don’t agree with him.

His reaction has been to keep claiming that, trying to prove that his evidence is so overwhelming that it is unthinkable that anybody could NOT agree with him. Well…he’s not Catholic. It’s quite possible that most of the folks posting here on CAF don’t agree with him on one thing or other. My point is that he’s not going to get a decent discussion about the meat of anything going on until he figures out that other people can actually DISAGREE with him, and be as convinced of their own Truths as he is of his. In fact, the length of this discussion is proof of that.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is going to want to talk to someone who thinks his debate opponent is a liar, a hypocrite, or too stupid to live, y’know. Until he admits that faith is not a lab experiment, and that our reasons FOR belief are strong enough for us to actually believe–just as his reasons for unbelief are strong enough for his unbelief, he’s going to get exactly nowhere…except perhaps dismissed as an arrogant young know it all who needs a few more experiences under his belt.

As for what Catholics think of Mormons… I already have a fair idea. I know what the official church position is. Individual Catholic opinions vary.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, Diana, Diana. (Shakes head, sadly) We both know that Protestants sought a “Reformation”, but it’s only the Mormons who claim that the Church is totally wrong. So wrong in fact, that the Mormons insist that their religion is a “Restoration”. And I was surprised (okay, I admit that when I first was rudely dropped into the LDS/Catholic controversy, I hadn’t the first clue what Protestant thought was about the LDS) to find that the Catholic arguments toward the LDS are much nicer than what the Protestants think of Mormons (and of course, what the Mormons think of both the Catholics and the Protestants.)

What part of 'to some degree or other…" didn’t you get? As well, if you think that it’s “only the Mormons” who claim that the church is totally apostate, please remember; WE don’t deny you the very title “Christian.” We believe that y’all lost the priesthood, and 'many of the plain and precious truths…" but do we think you went COMPLETELY off the rails? Well, no—not when you consider that Catholicism and Mormonism actually have more in common than most Protestants and Mormons do, especially in the matter of the basics; that is, free will, responsibility for sin, and believe it or not, the makeup of the godhead. There are many, many Protestants who are straight modalists, or have some other flavor of belief regarding predestination, who God is, and Who His Son is.

You might not realize this, but I’ve spoken to a LOT of Protestants, and the general consensus is that Catholics are not Christians. Some think that SOME of you could be, possibly…but the church as a whole? Not so much. Of course they are quite happy to accept that you will accept their baptisms; of course you will. They are, after all, right, right? You will notice, however, that among those Protestant churches who require baptism at all, most of 'em will ask Catholic converts to enter the waters again. (shrug)

Baptists, by the way, as a whole require everybody to be baptized again. Some denominations don’t, but they are the minority.

 

[dianaiad]

Didn’t Joseph Smith die with a gun in his hand? I know he fired shots at the mob that went for him. That’s not exactly giving his life.

Since he did not have to give himself up for arrest, and willingly put himself in the hands of those he KNEW were going to kill him, yes, it does. Also, it’s true. He had a gun and he shot it–AFTER the mob had already killed his brother and shot his friend. Personally?

I wish he had been better armed.

May 1844, Smith proclaimed this: “I have more to boast of than any man ever had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a church together since the days of Adam.…**
Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it**. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”

30 days later, June 27, 1844; Joseph Smith was shot in Carthage jail.

Yep, he was a loud mouth. Lessee…I remember a story about a man who struck a rock with his staff, from which clear water poured to quench the thirst of his thousands of followers. He ‘forgot’ to give God the credit, but kept it for himself, and guess what happened to him? I don’t see anybody denying that Moses was a prophet, do you?

Wasn’t Joseph Smith’s father a ‘treasure hunter’, which Joseph helped him with using the ‘seer stone’?

Was he?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You might not realize this, but I’ve spoken to a LOT of Protestants, and the general consensus is that Catholics are not Christians. Some think that SOME of you could be, possibly…but the church as a whole? Not so much. Of course they are quite happy to accept that you will accept their baptisms; of course you will. They are, after all, right, right? You will notice, however, that among those Protestant churches who require baptism at all, most of 'em will ask Catholic converts to enter the waters again. (shrug)

Baptists, by the way, as a whole require everybody to be baptized again. Some denominations don’t, but they are the minority.

And what is the general concensus of a LOT of Protestants towards Mormons?

Using other denominations to ‘belittle’ the Catholic Church seems to be a ploy used by Mormons when they feel it’s convenient to their argument.

What Protestants ask Catholic converts to do is of no consequence. Every Church has those who are weak in their faith, or do not really know it. Those who leave, like those they join, do not realize the Catholic Church is the Church started by Christ, as well as the baptism received in the Catholic Church is valid, and therefore are not ‘experts’ that we should weigh our faiths by.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since he did not have to give himself up for arrest, and willingly put himself in the hands of those he KNEW were going to kill him, yes, it does. Also, it’s true. He had a gun and he shot it–AFTER the mob had already killed his brother and shot his friend. Personally?

I wish he had been better armed.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. They didn’t have guns when Christ spoke that message. Joseph Smith did not know in advance that he was going to die. He, himself, had declared marshal law, as if he had that authority. He thought he was protected.

Christ knew He was going to die and ordered His ‘brothers’, the Apostles, to put away their sword. They did and eventually were led to the same deaths.

Yep, he was a loud mouth. Lessee…I remember a story about a man who struck a rock with his staff, from which clear water poured to quench the thirst of his thousands of followers. He ‘forgot’ to give God the credit, but kept it for himself, and guess what happened to him? I don’t see anybody denying that Moses was a prophet, do you?

Moses struck the rock twice. God told him to strike it once. There was no ‘forgetting’ to give God credit. Again, a Mormon seeks out something they feel can validate their leader through the Old Testament. Where is the examples we can see from Joseph Smith in the new and everlasting covenant as written in the New Testament?

Was he?

Yes, he was.

 

[dianaiad]

Oh, I stand corrected. He fired all shots and threw the pistol down before he jumped out the window only to be shot in the back by those he fired upon.

He fired three shots, and the gun misfired. He then went to the window and stood there, looking out. He was shot, and then fell out of the window, where the mob propped him against the wall and ‘shot him to doll rags.’

by doing so he saved the lives of the other two men in the room. As soon as everybody was shooting at Joseph, the other two men were able to hide and escape further wounds. In fact, the mob was so determined to get Joseph that THEY forced Richards behind the door, sheltering him from harm. .

It is not very likely that a man would deliberately go and stand in front of the place through which everybody was shooting with any hope of escape, is it? After all, ONE of the men who had been shot several times was hiding under the bed, and the other, who was not shot at all, hid behind the door. Why would Joseph go stand in THE most dangerous place in the room?

After reading all the accounts, and walking the place where it happened, it seems obvious to me; he shot, saw that nothing he could do was going to change HIS fate, and so did the only thing possible to change the fate of the others. He went to the window. He leaned over. He cryed 'Oh Lord, My God!" (which some people think was a signal to his Masonic brethren, but that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Why would he do that when everybody was shooting at him?

He was shot, he fell, and he was shot many, many more times.

Now Joseph has been called many things by many people. NOBODY has ever called the man a coward…not after what he had already been through and done in his life; not his worst detractors and enemies can call him that and be honest. So…was he really trying to escape? How uncharacteristic of him. It WAS characteristic of him to try to do the one thing that might save the lives of the two men with him, especially since it was obvious that it was not going to be possible to save his own.

Edited to add: Wasn’t Joseph’s brother also under arrest for treason? Not saying he was guilty, but apparently all were charged with rioting and the Smith brothers were charged with treason.

Of course they were. They had to charge him with something to get him confined to that place so they could kill him. It has been extensively studied by legal experts since that the charge of treason was bogus–it was one that would have had to have been dismissed. The mob knew that–the very fact that they attacked and killed him before that could be done is pretty good evidence that they knew this.

So yeah, he was innocent…

the other fact is that neither one of them…in fact, NONE of the men in that room, needed to be there. They gave themselves up voluntarily, and if they had not done so, the people who charged him would have had no legal recourse to go get him. They DID threaten, however, to attack and burn innocent Mormon civilians if he didn’t, though.

Joseph Smith was a very brave man, and I believe that he proved that with his last actions.

 

[dianaiad]

The LDS Church is:
Losing membership in Utah (except thru tremendous birth rate).
Needing to abandon missions in Europe (due to lack of success).
Needing to increase missions in Third World Countries (I think we know why)

DO we 'know why?" I know why…what’s your spin?

By the way, we are not ‘losing membership in Utah’ any more than anywhere else, or anyONE else.

 

[dianaiad]

You follow Joseph Smith. We do not follow Paul.

You don’t follow St. Paul, or use any of the stuff he wrote, or base any of your doctrine on the things he said?

Really?

 

[dianaiad]

When did Jesus ever teach about polygamy, gun fights, bedding other men’s wives, and that His church would fall into apostasy?

Those are the makings of a church a la Joseph Smith.

As I have asked before, list some Christ-like qualities of JS.

I see. Well, now I know why didn’t answer your original post asking about Joseph Smith. You aren’t really curious…you are ambushing.

I refuse to play.

 

[dianaiad]

And what is the general concensus of a LOT of Protestants towards Mormons?

Not that it matters, but the same folk who deny you the title also deny us the title. That’s irrelevent, though—the point is, WE do not deny that Catholics are Christians, though you deny that we are.

Using other denominations to ‘belittle’ the Catholic Church seems to be a ploy used by Mormons when they feel it’s convenient to their argument.

Really? Then why did YOU bring it up?

What Protestants ask Catholic converts to do is of no consequence. Every Church has those who are weak in their faith, or do not really know it. Those who leave, like those they join, do not realize the Catholic Church is the Church started by Christ, as well as the baptism received in the Catholic Church is valid, and therefore are not ‘experts’ that we should weigh our faiths by.

I see. So your opinion is correct because it’s correct, and while you can use what others thing to disparage us, (because of course what you say is correct and you can do as you wish) we are not allowed to refer to the beliefs and opinions of others to refute you because, of course, they are wrong and you are right.

Gotcha.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not that it matters, but the same folk who deny you the title also deny us the title. That’s irrelevent, though—the point is, WE do not deny that Catholics are Christians, though you deny that we are.

Really? Then why did YOU bring it up?

Read back through. I was responding to YOU bringing it up, against the Catholic Church.

I see. So your opinion is correct because it’s correct, and while you can use what others thing to disparage us, (because of course what you say is correct and you can do as you wish) we are not allowed to refer to the beliefs and opinions of others to refute you because, of course, they are wrong and you are right.

Gotcha.

Well, I’m glad you got it.

Twist and turn, spin and spin…come on. You bring it up as if it has some measure to how Catholics are to weigh their faith, seemingly to somehow validate Mormonism. Then you asked, why did we bring it up, when you are the one using this tactic.

 

[lax16]

DO we 'know why?" I know why…what’s your spin?

By the way, we are not ‘losing membership in Utah’ any more than anywhere else, or anyONE else.

ONCE AGAIN - the losing membership in Utah was in reference to the statement that Mormons are succeeding in Utah.

If you want to talk about who is succeeding in Utah, that would be interesting to research since I live there.

There are many comments in response to the news article that appeared in a local Utah newspaper a couple/few weeks ago (I can get the link if needed) about LDS shutting down missons in Europe and increasing them in Third World Countries.

Is it a spin, Dianaiad, or EDUCATED people drawing conclusions?

 

[lax16]

I see. Well, now I know why didn’t answer your original post asking about Joseph Smith. You aren’t really curious…you are ambushing.

I refuse to play.

By refusing to play, I will assume that you mean you are not going to answer me when I asked:
What are your favorite traits about JS that prove he was a man worthy of being called a prophet? Please provide examples from his life.

and

How was JS Christ-like? (He is afterall, more of a NT prophet than an OT prophet, would you agree?)

How is this ambushing?

 

[dianaiad]

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. They didn’t have guns when Christ spoke that message. Joseph Smith did not know in advance that he was going to die. He, himself, had declared marshal law, as if he had that authority. He thought he was protected.

Oh great googly moogly…are you KIDDING? Whatever ‘martial law’ he had declared certainly didn’t apply to the town he did NOT have any official position in, and certainly not in another flippin’ county! Considering that Emma had to talk him into going (and Brigham Young never forgave her for that, by the way…) and that he mentioned to several people that he was not going to come back, your statement that ‘he thought he was protected’ is ludicrous. He knew better. His JAILOR knew better, which is why, when the mob hit, he and his men were not in the cells, but in a different room. It was the best the jailor could do.

A little reality would be a good idea here. It doesn’t matter what you think about Joseph as person, or about the religion he founded…closing your eyes to reality doesn’t help you. The facts are the facts; you can’t change 'em to suit your distaste for the idea that Joseph was murdered, and knew he was going to be murdered.

Christ knew He was going to die and ordered His ‘brothers’, the Apostles, to put away their sword. They did and eventually were led to the same deaths.

Yet Catholics have no problem defending themselves, and have even made saints of soldiers. Why are YOU comparing Joseph Smith to Christ? WE don’t.

We believe that he was a prophet. Nothing more, and nothing less—and while Christ Himself did not raise a sword, He certainly told His apostles to use them…in fact, in one account He told them to ‘sell a cloak and buy’ one. He did not remove Peter from his place for defending Him, either. He simply healed the ear of the guard and told Peter that this wasn’t the time.

Mormons are not pacifists. We have never claimed to BE pacifists, and, by the way, neither are Catholics. Defending others against physical harm is very seldom wrong, and in this case, it certainly was not wrong. Injustice needs addressing every time, and injustice is injustice no matter what you happen to think of the victim.

Or is justice, to you, relative to whether the victim of it agrees with you?

Moses struck the rock twice. God told him to strike it once.

Oh, my.

God did not tell Moses to strike the rock. He told him to ‘speak to’ it, and He certainly did NOT tell him how many times to strike it. He said to Moses, after he and Aaron had heard the complaints of the people where they were stranded without water, and God said to them:

"Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, though, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eye; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock; so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink. And Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as he commanded him.
And Moses and Aaron gatherd the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice; and the water came out abundangly, and the congreagation drank, and their beasts also.
And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land wich I have given them. (Numbers 20:8-12)

Don’t you read your own scriptures? The Douay -Reims version is the same, with the same emphasis. Moses was told to ‘speak to the rock,’ and Moses did this dramatic “well, you rebels, shall we bring you water from this rock?” and hits the thing. Water comes out, and God is not pleased—He criticises Moses for not believing Him and giving HIM the credit for the water.

There was no ‘forgetting’ to give God credit.

Uhmn, yes, evidently there was.

Again, a Mormon seeks out something they feel can validate their leader through the Old Testament. Where is the examples we can see from Joseph Smith in the new and everlasting covenant as written in the New Testament?

Paul. We constantly remind you guys that Joseph Smith is a prophet and apostle just like Paul, having recieved direct revelation from God and Jesus the Christ. Joseph Smith was a prophet. NOT the Savior. A prophet. No more…and NO LESS.

Yes, he was.

Not…quite, no.

 

[dianaiad]

ONCE AGAIN - the losing membership in Utah was in reference to the statement that Mormons are succeeding in Utah.

If you want to talk about who is succeeding in Utah, that would be interesting to research since I live there.

There are many comments in response to the news article that appeared in a local Utah newspaper a couple/few weeks ago (I can get the link if needed) about LDS shutting down missons in Europe and increasing them in Third World Countries.

Is it a spin, Dianaiad, or EDUCATED people drawing conclusions?

It certainly seems to be your spin…

As for 'who is succeeding in Utah…" hmn. I would hope that y’all are succeeding in Utah better than I am succeeding in California.