Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[lax16]

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?

The Catholic Church is founded on Jesus Christ, Catholics follow Jesus Christ, and we have the early Church fathers to thank for writing about Jesus Christ.

 

[dianaiad]

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?

Because it is extremely obvious that you are not asking in order to find out what we think. You are asking specifically and only to set up an attack.

And I, personally, am not up to dealing with that sort of thing right now. If you want to take that as some sort of victory, be my guest, but you can’t possibly tell me that I, or anybody else, can come up with any thing about Joseph Smith’s life that you don’t already have some snarky answer to.

 

[lax16]

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.

I don’t spin things, I research them.

 

[dianaiad]

The Catholic Church is founded on Jesus Christ, Catholics follow Jesus Christ, and we have the early Church fathers to thank for writing about Jesus Christ.

Wow. How wonderful! As it happens, that’s OUR claim, too! Oddly enough, it’s only our enemies and critics who keep wanting to compare Joseph Smith to Jesus. WE don’t.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

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?

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.

Uhmn, yes, evidently there was.

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.

Interpretational differences here…of course one of us must interpret them a specific way or else the founder of our Church was wrong. The founder of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. The founder of the Mormon Church was Joseph Smith, who boasted he had done more than Christ, or any other man. Your founder seems to have placed himself above all others, including Christ. That is more than just a ‘prophet’.

 

[T_Hope]

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

The additions which are included in the “inspired version” are footnoted in their version of the Bible, which is the King James Version, along with other footnoted references to additional books including the Book of Mormon. And yes, they do make use of Joseph Smith’s changes.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not…quite, no.

Yes, under the ‘guise’ of being a ‘diviner’, Smith hired himself out to hunt for water and treasure buried by indians. The diviner had several ‘magic stones’ which he looked into, in order to discover the sites of the buried treasures.

Seems to have been a follow-up to Smith being a ‘magician’ in his younger years.

 

[lax16]

Because it is extremely obvious that you are not asking in order to find out what we think. You are asking specifically and only to set up an attack.

And I, personally, am not up to dealing with that sort of thing right now. If you want to take that as some sort of victory, be my guest, but you can’t possibly tell me that I, or anybody else, can come up with any thing about Joseph Smith’s life that you don’t already have some snarky answer to.

In all honesty, when I first asked the question, I was open to the idea that JS was an okay guy who started a new religion.

As the day went on, I did some reading…it got ugly.

So, fair enough, there probably isn’t anything you could say at this point that would satisfy me on the subject about JS as prophet. It would be interesting for the LDS to show another side of him, though.

One thing I would like an LDS perspective on, I truly don’t understand, is about the Journal of Discourses. Can you shed some light here?

 

[Xavierlives]

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.

…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.

Always worth a chuckle.

 

[Xavierlives]

Note: The history of Christianity does nothing to negate Smith being a liar and a false prophet. Throwing stones at protestants does not stop Joseph Smith from being a liar and a false prophet. You can point fingers all over the place and it does not stop Joseph Smith from being a liar and a false prophet.

Smith did not say his Church would last; he said it would stay together. It did not.

And we do share baptism, which we don’t share with the Mormons.

 

[why_me]

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?

I don’t think that the mormons are expecting to succeed in Utah. There are too many nonmormons moving into the area. And when I was a young adult erons ago, it was discussed that Utah may become an awful place for mormons. Mormons settled that area to get away from persecution. It is rather similiar to the state of Israel. But as more and more nonmembers move into the area, it would not surprise me if the persecution will begin again.

I have not heard of any missions shutting down in Europe. It may be that missionaries will be sent to other parts of the world, but I don’t think that missions will shut down. Maybe just less missionaries in the European area.

 

[why_me]

In all honesty, when I first asked the question, I was open to the idea that JS was an okay guy who started a new religion.

As the day went on, I did some reading…it got ugly.

It depends what you read. Of course, antimormon sites paint the poor guy as a monster to be hated and despised. There is so much hatred out there, especially on the internet that one can get quite an impression of the man. And yet, he succeed quite well considering all the persecution that he experienced along with the lds.

You can read Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman which is published by Knopf. But if you just read the internet from antimormon sites, fagetaboutit, all bad and no good words about him. And yes, they can make it kinda ugly.

And yet, here is what is strange. If Joseph Smith is such an ‘ugly’ creature, how could the mormons in general be a wonderful people? Can evil turn into something good? I don’t think so. Joseph was not such a bad guy.

 

[why_me]

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.

Joseph did know that he was going to die. In fact, as he left for prison he said as such.

A guard from Carthage warned Joseph in Nauvoo before he left:

**“If you go there they will kill you.” “I know it, but I am going. I am going to give myself for the people, to save them” Joseph said.152 **

Joseph told the company who were with him:

**I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am calm as a summer’s morning. I have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward all men. If they take my life I shall die an innocent man, and my blood shall cry from the ground for vengeance, and it shall be said of me "He was murdered in cold blood!"153 **

On June 24, after Joseph’s last visit with his family before going to Carthage, William Clayton writes:

**He appeared to feel solemn & though[t]ful, and from expressions made to several individuals, he expects nothing but to be massacred. This he expressed before he returned from over the river but their appearing no alternative but he must either give himself up or the City be massacred by a lawless mob under the sanction of the Governor.154 **

Similarly in his speech to the Nauvoo Legion on June 18, 1844:

**I do not regard my own life. I am ready to be offered a sacrifice for this people; for what can our enemies do? Only kill the body, and their power is then at an end. Stand firm, my friends; never flinch. Do not seek to save your lives, for he that is afraid to die for the truth, will lose eternal life… God has tried you. You are a good people; therefore I love you with all my heart. Greater love hath no man than that he should lay down his life for his friends. You have stood by me in the hour of trouble, and I am willing to sacrifice my life for your preservation.150 **

en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Martyrdom

How often do I need to prove the catholics wrong on this forum oh lord!. Such is my plea to heavenly father. And yet, I know that it doesn’t matter what the mormons post on these threads. It will not sink in and the same catholics will post disinformation again and again.

The Nauvoo legion could have went with him to protect him. But he went like a lamb to the slaughter. And the mobs were at the gates of Nauvoo with the support of the governor to destroy the mormons. Such was religious freedom in America.

 

[why_me]

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.

Not to be a party pooper here but why were the apostles carrying swords to begin with when they were with Jesus? And why did Jesus allow it? Interested in your response.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not to be a party pooper here but why were the apostles carrying swords to begin with when they were with Jesus? And why did Jesus allow it? Interested in your response.

Look, swords went with armor and spears, the Apostles had neither. It is believed by some that the ‘sword’ was more a sacrificial knife, such as was used to prepare for the Passover, that they had just came from when Christ was arrested.

Christ said, those who live by the sword, die by the sword. He taught for us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek. No where will you find where Christ people to use violence.

When Christ was preparing the Apostles for what was to happen, why would He say, ‘it is enough’ in reference to only two swords; against armor, spears, swords and multiple soldiers?

Someone else asked why Christ would tell the Apostles to sell their cloaks and buy swords. Christ knew they were but a few men, against a world of unbelievers. He was preparing them for the dangers that lay ahead for Himself and His followers. If He had been promoting the use of violence, you can bet there would be more on the subject. It’s not there.

 

[hosemonkey]

Not to be a party pooper here but why were the apostles carrying swords to begin with when they were with Jesus? And why did Jesus allow it? Interested in your response.

That Jesus’ followers were carrying swords or not is not germane to this discussion. Jesus Himself carried no weapons. Joseph Smith carried a pistol and used it. The fact remains that Joseph Smith was a crook and a con-man and bears no credibility as a prophet. That is the subject under discussion, not wether Jesus’ followers carried swords or not. Jesus was and is sinless, Jesus is God, he founded a church that is assisted by the Holy Ghost and lives today. The Church that He founded possesses all the power and majesty endowed by Christ Himself. Joseph Smith was a dubious individual who invented a false religion that practices deception and preaches false doctrine that leads to the ruin of souls. Do I need to make myself any clearer?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Joseph did know that he was going to die. In fact, as he left for prison he said as such.

A guard from Carthage warned Joseph in Nauvoo before he left:

**“If you go there they will kill you.” “I know it, but I am going. I am going to give myself for the people, to save them” Joseph said.152 **

Joseph told the company who were with him:

**I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am calm as a summer’s morning. I have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward all men. If they take my life I shall die an innocent man, and my blood shall cry from the ground for vengeance, and it shall be said of me "He was murdered in cold blood!"153 **

On June 24, after Joseph’s last visit with his family before going to Carthage, William Clayton writes:

**He appeared to feel solemn & though[t]ful, and from expressions made to several individuals, he expects nothing but to be massacred. This he expressed before he returned from over the river but their appearing no alternative but he must either give himself up or the City be massacred by a lawless mob under the sanction of the Governor.154 **

Similarly in his speech to the Nauvoo Legion on June 18, 1844:

**I do not regard my own life. I am ready to be offered a sacrifice for this people; for what can our enemies do? Only kill the body, and their power is then at an end. Stand firm, my friends; never flinch. Do not seek to save your lives, for he that is afraid to die for the truth, will lose eternal life… God has tried you. You are a good people; therefore I love you with all my heart. Greater love hath no man than that he should lay down his life for his friends. You have stood by me in the hour of trouble, and I am willing to sacrifice my life for your preservation.150 **

en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Martyrdom

How often do I need to prove the catholics wrong on this forum oh lord!. Such is my plea to heavenly father. And yet, I know that it doesn’t matter what the mormons post on these threads. It will not sink in and the same catholics will post disinformation again and again.

The Nauvoo legion could have went with him to protect him. But he went like a lamb to the slaughter. And the mobs were at the gates of Nauvoo with the support of the governor to destroy the mormons. Such was religious freedom in America.

Try reading something objective on the subject. Mormons are not the only ones to have ‘recorded’ this piece of history. There is much, that the Mormon apologetics ignores to mention in it’s explanation. Martyrs did not go down fighting.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Greek word used for ‘sword’ was ‘machaira’.

G3162
μάχαιρα
machaira
makh’-ahee-rah
Probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163; a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword.

Luke who used the word ‘machaira’, when telling about the Apostle who drew a ‘sword’, had also used the word, in other areas of his writings, ‘rhomphaia’.

G4501
ῥομφαία
rhomphaia
hrom-fah’-yah
Probably of foreign origin; a sabre, that is, a long and broad cutlass (any weapon of the kind, literally or figuratively): - sword.

Can you really not see the difference?

 

[Xavierlives]

Not to be a party pooper here but why were the apostles carrying swords to begin with when they were with Jesus? And why did Jesus allow it? Interested in your response.

Well, they probably carried swords for self-defense. Jesus didn’t need self-defense. We know that until Christ’s time, no one could harm him, so he could walk freely.

Imagine how liberating life would be if you knew when you were going to die. Of course you would then have the anxiety as that day approached.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, they probably carried swords for self-defense. Jesus didn’t need self-defense. We know that until Christ’s time, no one could harm him, so he could walk freely.

Imagine how liberating life would be if you knew when you were going to die. Of course you would then have the anxiety as that day approached.

Where in scriptures, do we see the Apostles defending themselves, after Christ spoke that he who lived by the sword shall die by the sword?

As I explained in my other post, they had just come from the Passover meal…