Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[dianaiad]

Sigh… Diana, I’m sorry if it came across to you in a way that convinces you that I think your a hypocrite.

Mr. Z, it did not 'come across to me." You flat out said it. I’m simply pointing out to you that such an attitude can really interfere with communication.

But the amount of evidence against Joseph Smith is overwhelming. And I’m certain it’s hard for Mormons to uphold these beliefs since they probably are well aware of how everyone else views their prophet. And why. If God hadn’t granted me the sword to smite down argumets against my religion i would have left it by now. -God Bless.

…and you are doing it again. Mr. Z, has it occurred to you that those of us who are not Catholic have the same opinion of YOUR beliefs that you do of ours? The difference, of course, is that I am perfectly willing to believe that you do believe, and to accept that your faith in Christ and in your beliefs about him are every inch as deep, and as sincere, as mine are. I am not so arrogant as to assume that what I consider to be overwhelming evidence is also obvious to everybody else.

This isn’t about what you believe. It’s not even about what I do. It’s about common courtesy and understanding that not everybody agrees with you, and when they don’t it’s not because they are hypocrites, liars, or just out to bug you.

…and it’s about a lesson in communication. You wanted to talk about my beliefs. You want to present your evidence regarding it. You want to tell us what YOU believe about it…but it all got mired down in the very offensive way you did it, by basically calling all Mormons hypocrites and liars because they don’t agree with you on this. Just how likely is it that any Mormon would greet this sort of thing with any sort of open mind?

Think about it: If I were to say that nobody really believes in transubstantiation, because it has been overwhelmingly proven that nothing about the wine or the wafers (or bread…) that changes in any way; it remains wine and bread; tastes like wine and bread, and is digested like wine and bread. It does not change in any way. So, anybody who says they believe in it is a liar and a hypocrite because they REALLY know better.

THINK about it.

…and no, I do not think that those who tell me that they believe in transubstantiation are liars or hypocrites. I understand the role of faith,and I understand the the idea of spiritual mysteries. I still do not believe that the wine and bread changes, but I understand quite well that YOU think it does, and I sure don’t believe that you are lying when you tell me so!

I’ve pounded this one quite enough, though. You’ll either figure it out, or you won’t.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Mr. Z, it did not 'come across to me." You flat out said it. I’m simply pointing out to you that such an attitude can really interfere with communication.

First of all, I flat out said nothing along the lines of you being a hypocrite. I said I don’t believe you actually believe what you believe is true. The key word here is actually. Why? Because people can surprisingly believe something against their will. Well, not against their will, their true reasoning. But through their will, believe it for emotional connections to that belief.

…and you are doing it again. Mr. Z, has it occurred to you that those of us who are not Catholic have the same opinion of YOUR beliefs that you do of ours? The difference, of course, is that I am perfectly willing to believe that you do believe, and to accept that your faith in Christ and in your beliefs about him are every inch as deep, and as sincere, as mine are. I am not so arrogant as to assume that what I consider to be overwhelming evidence is also obvious to everybody else. This isn’t about what you believe. It’s not even about what I do. It’s about common courtesy and understanding that not everybody agrees with you, and when they don’t it’s not because they are hypocrites, liars, or just out to bug you.

-And YOU’RE doing it again, Diana. Making me rip my bloody hair out. It just grew back, I’ll have you know. I’m absolutely 99.5% certain that Joseph Smith was not a prophet based on solid physical evidence, NOT opinion. And I’m not Catholic, by the way. But you are LYING TO YOURSELF if you believe that there is no physical evidence completely flattening Joseph Smith.

…and it’s about a lesson in communication. You wanted to talk about my beliefs. You want to present your evidence regarding it. You want to tell us what YOU believe about it…but it all got mired down in the very offensive way you did it, by basically calling all Mormons hypocrites and liars because they don’t agree with you on this. Just how likely is it that any Mormon would greet this sort of thing with any sort of open mind?

Well you can’t honestley say you’re being honest when you look at the evidence I present and say “I don’t agree with you on this” because it is the most rattional conclusion to come to. No one can avoid such a conclusion. You don’t have to stick with it, but it is the inference we make from it. I don’t enjoy picking at your religion, I’d much prefer it if I were wrong. It would level up to the sincerity that Mormons have, but that’s just not the case. Do you realize my best friend is Mormon? I wanted once, to explore his Mormon background. And even believed in it’s first-fruits and looked to see if I should join his Mormon conquest. But I found a tree bearing bad fruit, and fustrated myself with it’s taste, and felt sorry for those who got sick off of it’s meat, and fustrated because of their addiction to it.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Think about it: If I were to say that nobody really believes in transubstantiation, because it has been overwhelmingly proven that nothing about the wine or the wafers (or bread…) that changes in any way; it remains wine and bread; tastes like wine and bread, and is digested like wine and bread. It does not change in any way. So, anybody who says they believe in it is a liar and a hypocrite because they REALLY know better.

THINK about it.

…Perhaps you can see my fustration… Because that was a perfect example. You can’t admit that that sort of devoution doesn’t spark some concern for that individuals mindset. Even so, bread and wine are a minor thing that we can brush off. But the bread’s batter is stale, and has cement in it. And the grapes used for the wine aren’t grapes at all, they’re cherries painted purple.

…and no, I do not think that those who tell me that they believe in transubstantiation are liars or hypocrites. I understand the role of faith,and I understand the the idea of spiritual mysteries. I still do not believe that the wine and bread changes, but I understand quite well that YOU think it does, and I sure don’t believe that you are lying when you tell me so!

I’ve pounded this one quite enough, though. You’ll either figure it out, or you won’t.

Yes, but what you don’t understand is that this IS NOT a matter of spiritual mysteries. As for the role of faith, it is concerning.

“Faith is knowing what is to come, about things not yet seen.” Well we’ve seen the opposite of what is expected to come. I believe it is very possible that Joseph Smith could have translted the Book of Abraham through God’s intervention. But he clearly failed and is a fraud. I could forgive this, and brush it off as “Oh, it’s just not the same piece of papyre” if there weren’t other things completely piercing his prophet-hood.

Like Hebrews being the principle (now some of) the Native American’s ancestors. And the geological failure of his landscape in the BOM, ESPECIALLY compared to the Bible. We’re even able to geographically locate where the Garden of Eden was! There’s really just too much, basically all of what Joseph Smith stood for and preached. Even his morrals.

But Diana, I am terribly sorry that I can be so uncharitable. But I am deeply concerned. How can you believe so strongly in this man? It’s like being a slave to the wrong master. He has no right to constitute your beliefs. He is not worthy of your faith. AND MY ANGER BURNS AGAINST HIM FOR SAYING THERE IS NO SALVATION ACCEPT BY HIM. THAT IS A LIE!!! Jesus Christ, perhaps in any form, is the only way. And even as a supposed prophet, he puts himself much to high. Even for the position he is trying to fill.

He is not worthy of your faith, Diana. -God bless you, and again, I’m really sorry that I’m so uncharitable. But I can read completely opposing viewpoints to my own that expess the author’s feelings, and even cope with that person who feels in such a way. And I just have to let you know how I feel towards this “prophet.” I’m even holding myself back, I want to call him much harsher things; but I simply can’t, because it would hurt you. I can’t do it when you’re so close to him. You’ll get hurt in the crossfire.

 

[dianaiad]

First of all, I flat out said nothing along the lines of you being a hypocrite. I said I don’t believe you actually believe what you believe is true. The key word here is actually. Why? Because people can surprisingly believe something against their will. Well, not against their will, their true reasoning. But through their will, believe it for emotional connections to that belief.

I just sent you a private message about this, before I read your response. I will simply say this, Mr. Z. You need to go look up the definition of “hypocrite”. You can find it quickly here.

Saying that I don’t “Actually” believe what I say I do is calling me a hypocrite. By definition.

-And YOU’RE doing it again, Diana. Making me rip my bloody hair out. It just grew back, I’ll have you know. I’m absolutely 99.5% certain that Joseph Smith was not a prophet based on solid physical evidence, NOT opinion. And I’m not Catholic, by the way. But you are LYING TO YOURSELF if you believe that there is no physical evidence completely flattening Joseph Smith.

Mr. Z.

This isn’t about whether Joseph Smith is, or is not, a prophet. If you want to discuss that with me, first you give me the courtesy of accepting that I believe that he was. After all, I don’t have a bit of a problem believing that you do not think he was.

Well you can’t honestley say you’re being honest when you look at the evidence I present and say “I don’t agree with you on this” because it is the most rattional conclusion to come to.

Yes, I can…and until you can figure out that other people CAN look at the reasons you believe as you do…or don’t…in religious matters and disagree with you, you are never going to have a reasonable conversation between equals.

No one can avoid such a conclusion. You don’t have to stick with it, but it is the inference we make from it. I don’t enjoy picking at your religion,

Yes you do, or you wouldn’t do it. There are a LOT of other things that would be more fun to do at your age, y’know.

I’d much prefer it if I were wrong. It would level up to the sincerity that Mormons have, but that’s just not the case. Do you realize my best friend is Mormon? I wanted once, to explore his Mormon background. And even believed in it’s first-fruits and looked to see if I should join his Mormon conquest. But I found a tree bearing bad fruit, and fustrated myself with it’s taste, and felt sorry for those who got sick off of it’s meat, and fustrated because of their addiction to it.

That’s YOUR problem, Mr. Z. By the way, have you told your best friend that you think he is a liar and a hypocrite, and that he doesn’t really believe what he claims he does? If so, is he still your best friend?

I wouldn’t be.

Having you disagree with me, even as violently as you do, wouldn’t be a friendship killer. However, having you be as arrogant as to assume that my continued disagreement with you is a deliberate and dishonorable lie would be.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Diana, I understand that you’re offended. I’m sorry. I don’t think you’re a hypocrite. However, I do think you have prefered beliefs. Not that that’s not what you believe, but you believe it blindly. Because if you didn’t, you wouldn’t poor so much devoution into this supposed prophet who obviously doesn’t deserve it. It’s obvious to me, it’s obvious to anyone who’s ever investigated the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I know on your side of the coin, this has nothing to do with Joseph Smith. Later I’ll point out why it is all about Joseph Smith, but you believe I believe you’re a liar and a hypocrite.

Diana, you have to understand why I do not believe Mormons are being completely honest with themselves when met with the plastique of the fruits of Joseph Smith. As I plainly said, it’s obvious to me, it’s obvious to anyone who’s ever investigated the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that Joseph Smith deserves nobody’s faith. And I know it’s been made obvious to you. Now obviously you disagree. If you could, please respond giving a reason why. I know you think JS has nothing to do with my charity behavior lesson, but it does. I know you aren’t devoid of understanding like the common pedestrian who doesn’t consider a fluke when practicing religion. I know you it’s been made bvious to you why no one believes JS is worthy of your faith. And as my sister in Christ, I do not enloy seeing you take comfort in a lie.

 

[MrZetterlund]

MrZetterlund:

I don’t enjoy picking at your religion,

Diana:

Yes you do, or you wouldn’t do it. There are a LOT of other things that would be more fun to do at your age, y’know.

Do you honestley think I enjoy trying to splash down the sand that is your foundation? Do you honestley think I enjoy hurting your feelings? -Because I really don’t. Unlike most kids, I have an agenda. Take away the sheep from the abusive sheppered. Mormons are persecuted too much, and are too sincere for JS to deserve their faith.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, I understand that you’re offended. I’m sorry. I don’t think you’re a hypocrite. However, I do think you have prefered beliefs. Not that that’s not what you believe, but you believe it blindly. Because if you didn’t, you wouldn’t poor so much devoution into this supposed prophet who obviously doesn’t deserve it. It’s obvious to me, it’s obvious to anyone who’s ever investigated the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I know on your side of the coin, this has nothing to do with Joseph Smith. Later I’ll point out why it is all about Joseph Smith, but you believe I believe you’re a liar and a hypocrite.

Well, I believe that you mean what you say, Mr. Z.

Diana, you have to understand why I do not believe Mormons are being completely honest with themselves when met with the plastique of the fruits of Joseph Smith. As I plainly said, it’s obvious to me, it’s obvious to anyone who’s ever investigated the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that Joseph Smith deserves nobody’s faith.

Evidently it isn’t, Mr. Z, because people still join.

And I know it’s been made obvious to you. Now obviously you disagree. If you could, please respond giving a reason why. I know you think JS has nothing to do with my charity behavior lesson, but it does. I know you aren’t devoid of understanding like the common pedestrian who doesn’t consider a fluke when practicing religion. I know you it’s been made bvious to you why no one believes JS is worthy of your faith. And as my sister in Christ, I do not enloy seeing you take comfort in a lie.

(shaking head)

Someday you are going to look back on this conversation and be very embarrassed.

Mr. Z, religion isn’t science. It’s not supposed to be science. Religious faith is based upon evidence that cannot be quantified in scientific terms; after all, how can anybody who depends entirely upon scientific evidence believe in the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Parting of the Red Sea, Christ’s healing of the sick and raising of the dead, much less that He Himself was resurrected within three days of His Death, walked and talked with His apostles, and ascended bodily into heaven? Science tells us that these things are IMPOSSIBLE—yet we believe them.

Certainly those who do NOT believe them use the science as ‘irrefutable proof’ that they did not happen, just as you are attempting to shove your scientific evidence at me. I can’t help it, Mr. Z…it’s just not, in religion, good enough. All religious proof has to come from something other than science; it has to come from the Holy Ghost.

I haven’t even begun to talk to you about why I believe Joseph Smith is/was a prophet, and I won’t, either, until you get it figured out that people who DO believe that he was really, honestly and sincerely do believe it. For one thing, without that common understanding, no real exchange of thought is truly possible.

Your mind, Mr. Z, is closed tighter than a bear trap and a whole lot less able to bend. You do not have to change your attitude in regard to Mormonism in order to open it. You simply have to understand that, in spite of your own beliefs, other people can, and do, believe differently from you—and that they are sincere, serious, and just as smart, as you are when they do.

Here’s the thing: I know that we could find a properly carbon dated streetsign saying 'Zarahemla 20 miles (or whatever unit of measurement would have been appropriate) and you would find another reason for its appearance. There is no way in the world you would say “‘Zarahemla?’ it existed? Ok, I’m getting baptised this afternoon!”

I know this from many, many years of debating stuff. Attacks upon the Book of Mormon using this thing, or that thing…like cement. Way back when the Book of Mormon was criticized because the ancient Americans didn’t have cement, but the Book of Mormon mentioned it. This was considered absolute proof that the BoM was false.

Well, we discovered entire cement cities in the Ancient Americas. Do we now see anybody saying 'well, the BoM said there were cement cities, and there are, I guess it’s true!" Nope, nobody does that. The objection simply went away, and the objectors found something else. They will ALWAYS find something else…not because the science disproves the BoM, but because they don’t believe in the BoM and want to find things to justify that unbelief.

You will notice that I’m not claiming that cement cities prove the BoM to be true. I know it’s true because of other things…spiritual witnesses of its truth.

It’s the same way I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Not a perfect man, but then no man is perfect. He was, however, a prophet.

When you finally figure out that I"m dead serious about this, and that I understand that you are equally serious when you tell me that you do NOT believe it, THEN we can discuss it.

Diana

 

[dianaiad]

Do you honestley think I enjoy trying to splash down the sand that is your foundation? Do you honestley think I enjoy hurting your feelings? -Because I really don’t. Unlike most kids, I have an agenda. Take away the sheep from the abusive sheppered. Mormons are persecuted too much, and are too sincere for JS to deserve their faith.

That’s not what you said. You said you don’t enjoy “picking at [my] religion.” I say you do, because you actually DO ‘pick at [my] religion’ when you could be doing other things. People simply do not choose to do unpleasant things if more pleasant things are available. You aren’t getting paid for this, I don’t suppose.

If you honestly do not enjoy it, but do it anyway, it’s because you are a masochist…and if you are a masochist, then you actually enjoy not enjoying things.

I see that you are making some progress, though…people who are 'too sincere…to deserve their faith" is a little better than calling them liars when they claim they believe.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s not what you said. You said you don’t enjoy “picking at [my] religion.” I say you do, because you actually DO ‘pick at [my] religion’ when you could be doing other things. People simply do not choose to do unpleasant things if more pleasant things are available. You aren’t getting paid for this, I don’t suppose.

If you honestly do not enjoy it, but do it anyway, it’s because you are a masochist…and if you are a masochist, then you actually enjoy not enjoying things.

Like someone coming to a Catholic forum and claiming the Catholic Church doesn’t have a valid priesthood?

 

[hosemonkey]

Like someone coming to a Catholic forum and claiming the Catholic Church doesn’t have a valid priesthood?

The various mormon arguments regarding a “great apostacy”, loss of priesthood authority etc, etc, ad nauseum is rather ludicrous (definition follows)
adjective:causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable: a ludicrous lack of efficiency.

This position must be propounded by mormons, otherwise this manufactured religion becomes just another whacko cult that has come and gone over time. There must be a reason for it’s existence, other than the word of a very dubious upstate New York farmhand. To claim that the Holy Catholic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself, has somehow, in defiance of the very word of God himself, failed, is offensive to the utmost. For a mormon to assert that her religion is somehow being “picked on” begs the question of why it is that she is here making the usual leatherheaded mormon assertions regarding Catholicism on a Catholic forum. Throw stones, do not expect flowers in return. This is a place to ask questions about Catholicism, not to defend false religion. mormons are certainly free to believe as they choose, but they should expect to be challenged when they make ridiculous claims and assertions. And to MrZetterlund, keep up the good work.

 

[dianaiad]

Like someone coming to a Catholic forum and claiming the Catholic Church doesn’t have a valid priesthood?

A: This is a subforum of a Catholic forum specifically dedicated to the discussion of non-Catholic religions, and is therefore the proper venue for such statements.
B: I never claimed that I do NOT enjoy religious debate. I do. I do for two reasons
1:it allows me to correct errors about what my beliefs are, and
2. it allows me to learn new things.

If I didn’t enjoy debate and discussion, I’d be knitting socks instead of typing.

 

[dianaiad]

The various mormon arguments regarding a “great apostacy”, loss of priesthood authority etc, etc, ad nauseum is rather ludicrous (definition follows)
adjective:causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable: a ludicrous lack of efficiency.

This position must be propounded by mormons, otherwise this manufactured religion becomes just another whacko cult that has come and gone over time. There must be a reason for it’s existence, other than the word of a very dubious upstate New York farmhand. To claim that the Holy Catholic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself, has somehow, in defiance of the very word of God himself, failed, is offensive to the utmost. For a mormon to assert that her religion is somehow being “picked on” begs the question of why it is that she is here making the usual leatherheaded mormon assertions regarding Catholicism on a Catholic forum. Throw stones, do not expect flowers in return. This is a place to ask questions about Catholicism, not to defend false religion. mormons are certainly free to believe as they choose, but they should expect to be challenged when they make ridiculous claims and assertions. And to MrZetterlund, keep up the good work.

Actually, all non-Catholic Christians believe that the church is apostate to some degree or other; it’s not just Mormons. If they didn’t believe that, they’d be Catholic.

…and again, this specific sub-forum is called "non-Catholic religions.’ All the other subforums on CAF are, as you say, about discussing Catholicism. This one? Not quite as much.

For you to insist that this subforum is about the discussion of Catholicism is a little dishonest, y’know. I think the term commonly used is 'bait and switch?" The name of the subforum is 'Non-Catholic religions," and the purpose of the subforum, as described by CAF is “comparing and contrasting beliefs.” You already HAVE an apologetics sub-forum which is about “defense of the Faith, doctrines and dogma, historical controversies.”

…and please note: I’m not there.

I just noticed something, looking at the sticky notes at the top of non-Catholic religions…under 'important Forum Information." Rachel, bless her heart, mentioned the specific problem Mr. Z has in this ‘sticky,’ post #3, under ‘general guidelines,’ about half way down.

“It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs.”

I guess that settles that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A: This is a subforum of a Catholic forum specifically dedicated to the discussion of non-Catholic religions, and is therefore the proper venue for such statements.
B: I never claimed that I do NOT enjoy religious debate. I do. I do for two reasons
1:it allows me to correct errors about what my beliefs are, and
2. it allows me to learn new things.

If I didn’t enjoy debate and discussion, I’d be knitting socks instead of typing.

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

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. 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.

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, all non-Catholic Christians believe that the church is apostate to some degree or other; it’s not just Mormons. If they didn’t believe that, they’d be Catholic.

…and again, this specific sub-forum is called "non-Catholic religions.’ All the other subforums on CAF are, as you say, about discussing Catholicism. This one? Not quite as much.

For you to insist that this subforum is about the discussion of Catholicism is a little dishonest, y’know. I think the term commonly used is 'bait and switch?" The name of the subforum is 'Non-Catholic religions," and the purpose of the subforum, as described by CAF is “comparing and contrasting beliefs.” You already HAVE an apologetics sub-forum which is about “defense of the Faith, doctrines and dogma, historical controversies.”

…and please note: I’m not there.

I just noticed something, looking at the sticky notes at the top of non-Catholic religions…under 'important Forum Information." Rachel, bless her heart, mentioned the specific problem Mr. Z has in this ‘sticky,’ post #3, under ‘general guidelines,’ about half way down.

“It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs.”

I guess that settles that.

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?

 

[lax16]

Mr. Z.

This isn’t about whether Joseph Smith is, or is not, a prophet. If you want to discuss that with me, first you give me the courtesy of accepting that I believe that he was. After all, I don’t have a bit of a problem believing that you do not think he was.

Dianiad-
Can you please list your favorite traits about Joseph Smith that prove to you he was a man worthy of being called a prophet?

Also, please provide examples from his life.

 

[Stephen168]

Mr. Z.

This isn’t about whether Joseph Smith is, or is not, a prophet. If you want to discuss that with me, first you give me the courtesy of accepting that I believe that he was. After all, I don’t have a bit of a problem believing that you do not think he was.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Actually, all non-Catholic Christians believe that the church is apostate to some degree or other; it’s not just Mormons.

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.)

 

[sablouwho]

Actually, all non-Catholic Christians believe that the church is apostate to some degree or other; it’s not just Mormons. If they didn’t believe that, they’d be Catholic.

I respectfully disagree with this. While there is no doubt that there are people within various Protestant/non-denominations groups DO indeed think this, it is incorrect to “all non-Catholic Christians” believe this to some degree.

For instance, using myself as an example, the first coupla years that I was a Christian, I attended a church of a specific Protestant denomination, and yet I did not think this at all.

I know people personally who are in their particular denomination because they were brought up in it and are comfortable with it, and not because they think the CC is problematic. They are there because it’s what they’re familiar with and it’s fine for them.

It isn’t always about comparative religion. Sure, sometimes it is, but not all the time.

 

[why_me]

Dianiad-
Can you please list your favorite traits about Joseph Smith that prove to you he was a man worthy of being called a prophet?

Also, please provide examples from his life.

One trait that Joseph Smith had was determination. He gave his life for his faith and for his calling and by doing so, he showed determination that he would see his calling as prophet through without giving up.

Another trait that I like about Joseph Smith is his revolutionary ideas. He took christianity to new areas of discovery and in his own way, he revolutionized christianity even though he knew that it could cause problems down the road. He showed fortitude.

Joseph Smith like many prophets before him, was rejected by the people he was trying to save. No man at that time generated more hatred as did Joseph Smith and yet, America at that time was supposed to be a land of religious toleration. The contradiction is amazing.

Also, Joseph Smith was from humble origins. His family was not rich nor successful. He was uneducated in the traditional sense and yet, Joseph himself was a creator of cities and communities with the help of other mormons. Joseph grew into his calling as did the prophets before him.

He died at the young age of 38. And yet, he accomplished much in his short life. And when all this began, he was just in his early twenties.

I hope that this helps. You can read Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman published in 2005 by Knopf.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

One trait that Joseph Smith had was determination. He gave his life for his faith and for his calling and by doing so, he showed determination that he would see his calling as prophet through without giving up.

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.

Another trait that I like about Joseph Smith is his revolutionary ideas. He took christianity to new areas of discovery and in his own way, he revolutionized christianity even though he knew that it could cause problems down the road. He showed fortitude.

Joseph Smith like many prophets before him, was rejected by the people he was trying to save. No man at that time generated more hatred as did Joseph Smith and yet, America at that time was supposed to be a land of religious toleration. The contradiction is amazing.

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.

Also, Joseph Smith was from humble origins. His family was not rich nor successful. He was uneducated in the traditional sense and yet, Joseph himself was a creator of cities and communities with the help of other mormons.

I hope that this helps. You can read Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman published in 2005 by Knopf.

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