Formal Mormon Theology

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 2167
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

Re: Formal Mormon Theology

Post by Dr Exiled »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 2:01 am
Gadianton wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 9:41 pm

The closest I can see myself referring to anyone as a prophet is in the context of the religion's beliefs -- "Moses was a prophet of the Israelites". I didn't mention that use in my list because that's not actually me recognizing Moses as a prophet. That's recognizing followers of Moses believe in an X and Moses fills the role of X according to those people.
That makes sense. Obviously that same thing holds true today in regards to Joseph Smith. Otherwise we'd have a lot more Mormons.
Gadianton wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 9:41 pm
Merit is irrelevant to Mormons, it's whether or not God actually called Joseph to be a prophet.
One thing I've always found interesting is that Joseph Smith wasn't considered to be a prophet because of "merit" in the worldly sense. Degrees, education, stellar moral example, ability to be the 'spokesman' for the church, etc.

Most people, believers or not, would agree that in the case of Joseph Smith...he was one of the 'weak things of the world'. Interestingly, however, he was magnified many times over because of the faith and obedience that he exercised as he moved forward believing he was doing the will of the Lord.

He went from farm boy to a prophet who led a movement that resulted in a church that makes some pretty dang explosive truth claims.

It's amazing, to say the least.

Regards,
MG
The thing would have died had he lived longer, I believe. He was going in many different directions and his religion was becoming more and more fractious prior to his death. Having a martyr and moving the group west acted as a catalyst to keep the group going. They were out in the desert and the rest of the US population couldn't attack their ideas or practices with enough vigor to shut the movement down like probably would have happened if our ancestors had stayed in Illinois. Circumstance, geography and perhaps the civil war that kept the rest of the country occupied while polygamy flourished in the motherland fatherland allowed the nonsense to continue and grow to where it was too big to snuff out or absorb into the rest of Christianity.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Formal Mormon Theology

Post by I Have Questions »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 2:01 am
He went from farm boy to a prophet…
When, specifically, was he made a Prophet, and by whom? From the research I’ve done he was self-appointed (just like David Koresh etc)
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5718
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Formal Mormon Theology

Post by MG 2.0 »

I Have Questions wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:26 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 2:01 am
He went from farm boy to a prophet…
When, specifically, was he made a Prophet, and by whom? From the research I’ve done he was self-appointed (just like David Koresh etc)
Jesus. First Vision.

He was told that he had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before him.

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 7970
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Formal Mormon Theology

Post by Moksha »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 2:55 am
The thing would have died had he lived longer, I believe. He was going in many different directions and his religion was becoming more and more fractious prior to his death. Having a martyr and moving the group west acted as a catalyst to keep the group going. They were out in the desert and the rest of the US population couldn't attack their ideas or practices with enough vigor to shut the movement down like probably would have happened if our ancestors had stayed in Illinois. Circumstance, geography and perhaps the civil war that kept the rest of the country occupied while polygamy flourished in the motherland fatherland allowed the nonsense to continue and grow to where it was too big to snuff out or absorb into the rest of Christianity.
Can you see Joseph's preaching encouraging his disciples to murder a wagon train full of immigrants to California, like with Brigham? I can see Joseph having a hankering for some of the women, especially any teenagers, but not a full-scale massacre.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Formal Mormon Theology

Post by I Have Questions »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Jun 30, 2025 3:36 am
I Have Questions wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:26 am
When, specifically, was he made a Prophet, and by whom? From the research I’ve done he was self-appointed (just like David Koresh etc)
Jesus. First Vision.

He was told that he had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before him.

Regards,
MG
Sorry, just for clarity, which version of the First Vision are we talking about? The initial memory, or the one that came years later when Joseph was losing momentum and needed a miraculous story to bolster his reputation?

For reference - none of the vision stories amount to Joseph being called as a Prophet.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5718
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Formal Mormon Theology

Post by MG 2.0 »

I Have Questions wrote:
Mon Jun 30, 2025 9:15 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Jun 30, 2025 3:36 am


Jesus. First Vision.

He was told that he had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before him.

Regards,
MG
Sorry, just for clarity, which version of the First Vision are we talking about? The initial memory, or the one that came years later when Joseph was losing momentum and needed a miraculous story to bolster his reputation?

For reference - none of the vision stories amount to Joseph being called as a Prophet.
He was told that he had a work to do and that the gospel would be restored through him. He was referred to as "the prophet" before 1830 but it might be helpful to remember that this wasn't the title bestowed upon him as his official title. It was, "President of the High Priesthood". The First Vision was the focal point that initiated events in which he was referred to as "the prophet".
“If you start a church with a prophet in it everybody will be against you,” Smith’s friend W.W. Phelps wrote ruefully in 1835. People had been calling Joseph Smith a prophet since before he organized his church in April of 1830, and the revelation that he presented to the group of people there that day claimed the title. “Behold there Shall a Record be kept among you & in it thou shalt be called a seer & Translater & Prop[h]et,” it said. They voted to accept this statement as the word of God.

But soon Smith reached for another title too. In November 1831, he dictated a revelation that now comprises the latter half of the current section 107 in the Doctrine and Covenants. Several passages near the beginning of that revelation (now versus 64-66) delineate that office.

“Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church; or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.”
https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/the-p ... the-priest
Regards,
MG
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 2685
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am

Re: Formal Mormon Theology

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

I Have Questions wrote:
Mon Jun 30, 2025 9:15 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Jun 30, 2025 3:36 am


Jesus. First Vision.

He was told that he had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before him.

Regards,
MG
Sorry, just for clarity, which version of the First Vision are we talking about? The initial memory, or the one that came years later when Joseph was losing momentum and needed a miraculous story to bolster his reputation?

For reference - none of the vision stories amount to Joseph being called as a Prophet.

It's painfully obvious that MG doesn't know anything about church history.
Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2024 4:03 am
Image
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 2167
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

Re: Formal Mormon Theology

Post by Dr Exiled »

Moksha wrote:
Mon Jun 30, 2025 3:45 am
Dr Exiled wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 2:55 am
The thing would have died had he lived longer, I believe. He was going in many different directions and his religion was becoming more and more fractious prior to his death. Having a martyr and moving the group west acted as a catalyst to keep the group going. They were out in the desert and the rest of the US population couldn't attack their ideas or practices with enough vigor to shut the movement down like probably would have happened if our ancestors had stayed in Illinois. Circumstance, geography and perhaps the civil war that kept the rest of the country occupied while polygamy flourished in the motherland fatherland allowed the nonsense to continue and grow to where it was too big to snuff out or absorb into the rest of Christianity.
Can you see Joseph's preaching encouraging his disciples to murder a wagon train full of immigrants to California, like with Brigham? I can see Joseph having a hankering for some of the women, especially any teenagers, but not a full-scale massacre.
That's a good point. Joseph Smith was a lover, and only fought when parents objected to his firm "revelations." BY was a precursor to the paranoia Stalin exhibited and of course loved genocides. Do your duty elder .... anyway, I recently took my oldest son to Mountain Meadows after a baseball tournament in Cedar City. I don't know if it's because of what I know but the place still seems creepy. My son even commented about the still silence of the area. I'm not proud of my family relationship to the bearded dictator.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5718
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Formal Mormon Theology

Post by MG 2.0 »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Tue Jul 01, 2025 12:02 am

It's painfully obvious that MG doesn't know anything about church history.
Rather than post painfully obvious falsehoods such as those found in your last post you might try reading the post where I responded to IHQ just before your silly response.

Am I supposed to take you seriously?

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 2685
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am

Re: Formal Mormon Theology

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:15 am
Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Tue Jul 01, 2025 12:02 am

It's painfully obvious that MG doesn't know anything about church history.
Rather than post painfully obvious falsehoods such as those found in your last post you might try reading the post where I responded to IHQ just before your silly response.

Am I supposed to take you seriously?

Regards,
MG
I know it’s a sore spot when people continually point out the obvious fact that you know very little about church history.

Instead of lashing out in anger, you might want to actually read some church history. Reading is not that difficult MG. Here is something to get you motivated:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OAIW5se_c ... IHNvbmc%3D
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
Post Reply