Why me's "Smith was Human" excuse..

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Why me's "Smith was Human" excuse..

Post by _moksha »

why me wrote:
Moksha wrote:
Would the fact that Truth Dancer's question is ultimately unanswerable by humans perhaps be able to exculpate Why Me?

I attempted to answer some of her questions above. Her questions focused on Joseph Smith, the 'fraudster'.


Yes, but specifically I was trying to address her question of "when is one entitled to receive revelation from God"?

To me there appears to be no discernible pattern except the one now institutionalized relative to one's longevity as a Quorum of the Twelve member. For the early Church, after Jesus death, it was a matter of drawing lots. However, for the prophets picked by God, the criteria seems to one of mystery. Thus when she asks the question, the most honest answer (my opinion only) would be a silent shrug.

.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Re: Why me's "Smith was Human" excuse..

Post by _Inconceivable »

karl61 wrote:Why me: I understand why this thread is so difficult for LDS to explain is because the LDS church excommunicates honest people who come forward and confess their sins. These people are not caught in the barn, not caught by letters that they have written, they come forward and admitt their faults. Then they are judged. Someone once warned about judging others saying that the way you judge others is the way you shall be judged.


The church excommunicates those that commit sins of adultery etc because the suits do not wish the church be representative of such people. Excommunication can either be a permanant or probationary state for the wicked (or even the penetant).

What WhyMe is saying is that Joseph Smith is representative of the people not the church. But this cannot be so. Joseph Smith represents the Mormon God and so do all other priesthood holders - including WhyMe.

Surely Smith was not an adulterer, a liar, a vow breaker. Nothing can excuse such behavior. Neither is the act of adultery representative of a saint, God's true church or God Himself. This would taint an image the suits have struggled to create for over 160 years.

God would not command anyone to commit adultery. He does not look upon sin with any degree of allowance. One looses the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost by knowingly committing sin. If Smith is dirty, he could not have received the inspiration necessary to restore God's perfect church. And God's church is founded upon the Rock of Revelation. Smith cannot be above the law, but must represent it. So Smith must be clean - or at least be perceived as so, otherwise the church has lost it's foundation.
Post Reply