Joseph Smith's Personal Claim to Fame.

[_DarkHelmet]

I haven't read all the posts, but I think this is a very weak apologetic point. Knowing what we know about Joseph Smith, is it surprising that he would make such a bold claim? No. Knowing what we know about Joseph Smith, is it surprising that 175 years later his prophecy is totally unfulfilled? No. Since Mormons haven't been able to make any significant statistical progress (despite all their missionary efforts to get Joseph Smith's name out there to fulfill this prophecy) in the past 175 years, will this prophecy be fulfilled any time soon? No.

Thanks for that, but it might be well to go back and read all the posts. Your apologetic is short and sweet...and weak.

Regards,
MG

If this is such compelling evidence, then maybe the missionaries should be using it in their discussions to help the prophecy be fulfilled.

Missionary: Did you know Joseph Smith prophesied his name will be known for good and evil throughout all the nations?

Investigator: Well, I've never heard of him.

Missionary: Now you have.

Investigator: Whoa.

Missionary: So as you see, his prophecy is being fulfilled as we speak.

Investigator: Sign me up.

[_Darth J]

Have any of these people you've mentioned or any folks that were around during during the time of the Second Great Awakening explicitly said that their name would/will be known for good or evil throughout the earth? As of yet, I still haven't had this shown to be the case.

Your idea would be slightly more persuasive if you could decide whether you want your thesis to be that the prophecy was really about Joseph Smith or really---by implication---about the Church.

If it's mostly about the Church, then your insistence that these other religious visionaries didn't phrase their predictions in terms of their own notoriety is irrelevant, since it is the same essential prediction: that their religious movement is going to be known throughout the world.

If it's mostly about Joseph Smith, then your absolute refusal to consider that other branches of Mormonism---besides just the LDS one---may also be fulfilling this prophecy is divesting yourself of evidence for no reason other than naked partisanship.

Given that you keep referring to the marketing campaign of the LDS Church as proof of this prophecy being fulfilled, it looks a whole lot like you are going with the first choice. And since the prophecy is really about the growth of the Church, and the Church taking Joseph Smith's name along with it, your dismissive attitude about similar predictions by other religious visionaries is just a distinction without a difference.

And yes, Darth is right, it can't be proved that an angel said this to Joseph Smith from any primary historical record that is written in Joseph's own hand (but very little was written in his own hand, so this is what we would expect anyway). But it is as a matter of fact in the historical record and can be dealt with on its own merits. The fact is, Joseph Smith's name is known for good and evil AND we have him in a position of having been told this back in 1823 by an angel, at least according to the historical record.

We can't prove from the historical record that there was a contemporaneous statement about this from Joseph Smith in 1823, but it's part of the historical record anyway?

Really?

Really?

I suppose if nothing else, we could ask ourselves the question: Why have this particular turn of the phrase in the History of the Church at all? It seems to me that when the History of the Church was compiled and written it would have been just as well to leave that short sentence out of the history.

Yet it's there. Why?

Because it's faith-promoting propaganda. Why did they go with that particular version of the First Vision story?

I'm not convinced that we should simply set this aside as you would suggest.

That's because "Joseph Smith was a prophet" is not your conclusion, but your starting premise.

Sure. But the simple fact is, Joseph Smith's name is becoming more "out there" each day that the internet is in play and since his name was recently IN a play with nationwide press/media covering it. Mathematically/statistically you can make this point and use it to produce a null set. But I don't have to be a great mathematician, which I'm not, to SEE that Joseph's name IS, as time goes on, becoming more well known, pro and con, in the world.

And them's the facts.

Facts that you are absolutely unwilling to attribute, in any part, to any branch of Mormonism other than the LDS one. But yes, as time goes on, and people become more and more aware of the facts about Joseph Smith and reject him on the basis of those facts, how wonderful to know that an increasing worldwide knowledge of the implausibility of Mormonism's foundational claims ironically helps prove that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

You seem to be one that thinks in binary fashion. Either-or. Either all Joseph Smith's prophecies are true or none of them can be. Joseph Smith himself would disagree with you on that point.

I think the response to your OP has been more about that the alleged prophecy isn't really a prophecy at all.

When all is said and done, if Joseph Smith did receive this prophecy from an angel, it's coming to pass. If it didn't come through an angel, it's still coming to pass or is in the process of doing so. I would default to the first case, at least for now, since I'm still not convinced:

I think it just goes without saying that "an angel did it" is the null hypothesis. I mean, when one or more alternative explanations present themselves, "an angel did it" should be your first choice.

That's pretty much Occam's Razor in a nutshell right there.

1. That it was common or is common for people to state as a matter of fact that their name will be had for good and evil way out in the future. What purpose does it or would it serve?

To make your new and growing religious movement seem important and destined for great things. Who would prophecy their own obscurity?

You know, manifest destiny used to be the idea that Americans had on the early frontier, and what do you know: it happened!

I'm going to go with "an angel did it" until it is proven otherwise.

2. That we ought to even find this pronouncement/sentence in the History of the Church at all unless there's reason for it to be there and that there is something to it.

It is indeed a mystery why a new and growing religious sect would write its history retroactively to make it seem as important and earth-shaking as possible.

And you know, the History of the Church talks about Joseph Smith translating the Kinderhook Plates, too. They wouldn't have put that in there unless there was something to it!

[_mentalgymnast]

Your idea would be slightly more persuasive if you could decide whether you want your thesis to be that the prophecy was really about Joseph Smith or really---by implication---about the Church.

If it's mostly about the Church, then your insistence that these other religious visionaries didn't phrase their predictions in terms of their own notoriety is irrelevant, since it is the same essential prediction: that their religious movement is going to be known throughout the world.

If it's mostly about Joseph Smith, then your absolute refusal to consider that other branches of Mormonism---besides just the LDS one---may also be fulfilling this prophecy is divesting yourself of evidence for no reason other than naked partisanship.

Given that you keep referring to the marketing campaign of the LDS Church as proof of this prophecy being fulfilled, it looks a whole lot like you are going with the first choice. And since the prophecy is really about the growth of the Church, and the Church taking Joseph Smith's name along with it, your dismissive attitude about similar predictions by other religious visionaries is just a distinction without a difference.

It's both. The two are intertwined. I'm not unwilling to look at the other offshoots of the early LDS movement as playing a part in broadcasting the name of Joseph Smith into the world for good or for evil. They have. Say out loud... FLDS.

However, I do think that if the restoration of the gospel/church is an act of God and He is behind its foundations, it's the Salt Lake Church that holds the keys and authority. The CofJCofLDS most closely matches the restoration description given in the whole of Sec. 1 in the D&C most most especially this verse:

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased...

It is fairly apparent that the other restoration offshoots don't meet that requirement, at least not yet, along with the content of other verses in Sec. 1 (see verses 4, 11, 18, 22, 23, 34). That doesn't invalidate the fact that the name of Joseph Smith is put into circulation as a result of these splinter groups existing.

... your dismissive attitude about similar predictions by other religious visionaries is just a distinction without a difference.

No, because similar predictions haven't been made by any of these religious visionaries that their names would be circulated throughout the world for good and evil.

At least I haven't been made aware,yet, that any of these folks claimed that their names would known for good and evil 150+ years into the future. Again, why would they WANT to do that? I expect that Joseph, if had his druthers, would just as well this particular sentence in his history had not entered into the canon. It's not very flattering.

But it did. And if others did it without his knowledge, it still holds true that it's not very flattering. Why put it there? I haven't heard a convincing reason up to this point in answering this question.

I suppose that if an angel was the one that prophesied that this would happen, however, Joseph may not have had a whole lot of choice in the matter.

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

Mentalgymnast:

Over a year ago, there was an immense amount of hype about Will Schryver's FAIR conference presentation about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Before the presentation even happened, it was written about in the Deseret News as something that was "driving the critics crazy." It was lauded by Greg Smith, a published Mormon apologist. It was THE talk on former Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board.

And amidst that environment, when the defenders of the faith were crowing and cheering about this "game changer," I made the following prediction on May 23, 2010:

Will's presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, if it ever is actually presented, will have approximately the same world-shaking impact on Mormonism as a rerun of Punky Brewster.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12998&p=321825&hilit=punky#p321825

I reiterated that prediction in August 2010, before Schyrver had made his FAIR presentation: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13918&start=168

I was ridiculed for my prediction: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17608&p=437985&hilit=punky#p437985

And yet my prediction has come to pass.

That was a BOLD CLAIM for me to have made, especially given the conventional wisdom in Mormon apologist circles at the time.

Why would I have said that? How could I have known it at the time?

There is simply no way I could have known at the time. There must be something to it!

[_mentalgymnast]

Spurven Ten Sing post really was very good in regards to the OP, and it is to bad that it has been ignored so far.

Check.

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

It's both. The two are intertwined. I'm not unwilling to look at the other offshoots of the early LDS movement as playing a part in broadcasting the name of Joseph Smith into the world for good or for evil. They have. Say out loud... FLDS.

However, I do think that if the restoration of the gospel/church is an act of God and He is behind its foundations, it's the Salt Lake Church that holds the keys and authority. The CofJCofLDS most closely matches the restoration description given in the whole of Sec. 1 in the D&C most most especially this verse:

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased...

It is fairly apparent that the other restoration offshoots don't meet that requirement, at least not yet, along with the content of other verses in Sec. 1 (see verses 4, 11, 18, 22, 23, 34). That doesn't invalidate the fact that the name of Joseph Smith is put into circulation as a result of these splinter groups existing.

But of course, "obscurity" is a relative term. The vast majority of the human race either has not heard of Mormonism (any version of it) at all, or has vaguely heard something or other but neither knows nor cares about anything of substance regarding Mormonism.

Earlier in this thread, you said that things take time and the LDS Church is still in the process of bringing Joseph Smith's name to every nation, kindred, tongue, etc. So why can't we give the Community of Christ some time, and allow that they are in the process of bringing the Church out of obscurity?

You're aware that they also believe in D&C 1, aren't you?

... your dismissive attitude about similar predictions by other religious visionaries is just a distinction without a difference.

No, because similar predictions haven't been made by any of these religious visionaries that their names would be circulated throughout the world for good and evil.

At least I haven't been made aware,yet, that any of these folks claimed that their names would known for good and evil 150+ years into the future. Again, why would they WANT to do that? I expect that Joseph, if had his druthers, would just as well this particular sentence in his history had not entered into the canon. It's not very flattering.

But it did. And if others did it without his knowledge, it still holds true that it's not very flattering. Why put it there? I haven't heard a convincing reason up to this point in answering this question.

If the claim that someone is going to be known throughout the world is intertwined with the claim that your religious movement is going to be known throughout the world, what exactly is the substantive difference when the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, say that one day their message is going to go all over the world?

And the reason why the "not very flattering" part of the prediction would be put in is because of the Mormon persecution complex, wherein Mormons believe that people disputing their claims is evidence that the Church is true. That was a narrative that Joseph Smith himself consistently cultivated, which tended to coincide with his failures of leadership.

I suppose that if an angel was the one that prophesied that this would happen, however, Joseph may not have had a whole lot of choice in the matter.

Oh, and here I thought the LDS Church did not believe in predestination.

[_mentalgymnast]

Mentalgymnast:

Over a year ago, there was an immense amount of hype about Will Schryver's FAIR conference presentation about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

I was there and heard him give his presentation. It was packed, 'tis true.

Before the presentation even happened, it was written about in the Deseret News as something that was "driving the critics crazy." [And I said,] Will's presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, if it ever is actually presented, will have approximately the same world-shaking impact on Mormonism as a rerun of Punky Brewster. And yet my prediction has come to pass. That was a BOLD CLAIM for me to have made, especially given the conventional wisdom in Mormon apologist circles at the time.

Why would I have said that? How could I have known it at the time?

There is simply no way I could have known at the time. There must be something to it!

Thanks for sharing that. You guys and your parallelomania. <g>

Could it have anything to do with the fact that Schryver was outed as an a**hole and the apologists didn't want anything to do with him?

Monday, Aug 23, 2010, at 07:46 AM
An Open Letter To The Deseret News / Mormon Times
Posted By Darth J
WILLIAM SCHRYVER -Guid- ↑
Recently, you ran stories about Brother William Schryver's presentation at the FAIR conference, making reference to what you termed "frustrating speculation by many critics" on internet message boards. I think it is a safe assumption that you were referring to this message board. You also quoted a post from Greg Smith on Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board about Brother Schryver killing critical theories about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and burying them under Mount Doom, etc.

I am aware that you will be cutting back your publication and laying off staff members, but since you devoted two whole stories to the new champion of the faithful and hero of Mormon apologetics, shouldn't you take the time to share with your dwindling readership (as evidenced by your recently-announced cutbacks and layoffs) more about this internet buzz regarding Brother Schryver? He is certainly proud of his behavior, as he has explicitly said. Shouldn't you and faithful members of the Church also be proud of your new hero?

Let us all bask in the humble piety and Christ-like character of Brother Schryver, who is to the LDS faithful as Lancelot was to King Arthur. I only have time for a few examples of his noble, pious, and humble spiritual insights.

Speaking of Jesus loving others, Brother Schryver said:

William Schryver wrote:
I'm not so sure. After all, he mocked the Pharisees and Sadducees quite effectively during his mortal sojourn.

Besides, I can do both at the same time.

"I love all of you stinking apostates."
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 87#p327387

Regarding the sudden necessity for both himself and Brent Metcalfe to be published before a debate can happen:

William Schryver wrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, on the basis of my not having yet published, in a formal venue, any of my findings, they are to be regarded as "lies and b***s***" until that time?

Is this same criteria applied equally to Brent Metcalfe?

I have, at least, "e-published," as it were, several arguments in the Pundit's forum of the MAD board that pertain to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, as well as my first draft of the scroll-length article that will soon be published in the JBMORS.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 67#p326667

On respect for women:

William Schryver wrote:
In fact, the more I think about it, the more abused I feel. Do you realize that I am surrounded by a veritable cloud of estrogen from day to day? I am verbally and emotionally abused by females from dawn to dusk, day after day, week after week, and year after year, and they have, each and every one, learned far too well how to hit where it hurts.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 02#p323302 On his feelings about talking about group masturbation, unbelievers being the spawn of whores, and other Christ-like topics:

William Schyrver wrote:
As I’ve said many times, I hope people DO read everything I have ever written on this message board. Not only will doing so put the lie to the propaganda campaign that has been waged against me, but it will be entertaining for them as well!
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 78#p323178

On how people who lose their faith in the LDS Church must be stupid:

William Schyrver wrote:
Granted, you and John are nearer the dark end of the spectrum, but then you have people like Polygamy Porter and Liz and Paul Osborne et al. who simply lack the intellect sufficient to be as effective evangelists as you are. That's all right, though, because the majority of apostates are more like them than you, so the presence here of a large number of extremely average people makes it a welcoming environment for all. ;-)
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 31#p322631

On having civil discourse and friendly relationships with those who disagree with you:

William Schyrver wrote:
The difference being, of course, that it's always clear that I'm just passing through, whereas you and your cohorts belong.

When the day comes that people here start praising me, then you can say that I belong, too. Until then, the lines of demarcation are stark and bold, just as I prefer them.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 50#p322250

On respect for people of other faiths---in this case, Ceeboo, who is a Roman Catholic:

William Schryver wrote:
Seepoo:.......

From what I've seen so far, I couldn't fill a thimble with the coherent thoughts generated by "follk" like you, so I'm rather disinclined to concern myself with what you think.

As for my "contributions" here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™, I can only assure you that they are carefully calibrated to produce precisely the effect you have observed here today. Feel free to use the "Ignore" function to hide my posts from your offended gaze in the future.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 45#p294745

More on his respect for women:

William Schyrver wrote:
Edit: KA was the one who blogged about her breast reduction surgery. It was hilarious. I laughed. I cried. I blew snot bubbles.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 17#p294717

On his sincerity:

William Schyrver wrote:
I, on the other hand, am trying to be insulting. Being witty is simply an unavoidable byproduct of my saying anything at all.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 45#p294645

On his respect and compassion for working class people:

William Schryver wrote:
You're just the homely waitress wandering from table to table here in the singlewide, hoping that someone will get drunk enough to ask you out.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 86#p294086

And even more on his chivalrous attitude toward the fair sex:

William Schyrver wrote:
I think the real problem is that harmony dislikes women, or rather, being a woman. She resents the fact (as she sees it) that she was born into an inferior (as she sees it) role, body, status, etc.

Of course, she's really not that uncommon in this respect. Modern feminism has now produced at least three generations littered with self-loathing women. It's one of the great tragedies of our times, if you ask me.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 45#p257645

On his status as a meek and humble follower of Jesus Christ:

William Schryver wrote:
You see, I don’t care in the least about your bawdy sins. Nor am I interested in whatever “punishment” they might merit.

No, what fills me with the thrill of anticipation is the thought of the mighty Jehovah finally smacking down the pride and haughty looks of the arrogant bastards, like you, who have been mocking the Saints from the balconies of the great and spacious building since time immemorial. I couldn’t care less what they do behind the closed doors of their penthouse suites. But I am greatly offended—viscerally outraged—at how the meek and humble followers of Christ have been mocked and ridiculed throughout the ages by people like those of you who continue the apostate tradition on this message board.

The Lord has patiently enjoined His Saints to leave vengeance to Him. And we have patiently done so.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 10#p257410

On his overall Christ-like persona:

William Schyrver wrote:
You're the toughest talking blowhard of a bitch I've ever seen.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 48#p257348

And his status vis-à-vis God:

William Schryver wrote:
Besides, as I've indicated previously, I have my calling and election made sure. I'd have to shed innocent blood to fall from my exaltation at this point. And we both know I ain't gonna find any of that here.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 48#p257348

On missionary work:

William Schryver wrote:
You're the toughest talking blowhard of a bitch I've ever seen.

"Grrrrrrr ... put up or shut up! Grrrrrrr ... I'm so intimidating when I snarl ..."

:lol:!

OK, you gnarly, snarly wench you, here's some scriptural references for you. Go educate yourself about the law of the celestial kingdom"
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 36#p257336

And to the cheerleaders at MADB who are lurking here and reading this thread, stand and and be proud. Tell the world about your new hero. Show us the Christ-like, humble attitude that Mormon apologetics should be known for, as demonstrated by its new poster boy.

I look forward to more about Brother Schryver as soon as the Deseret News and/or Mormon Times has the space to devote to it.

Sincerely, Darth J

Hey! That's you!

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

But of course, "obscurity" is a relative term. The vast majority of the human race either has not heard of Mormonism (any version of it) at all, or has vaguely heard something or other but neither knows nor cares about anything of substance regarding Mormonism.

We're going to have to nickname you "weasel". You have an innate talent for weaving in and out of every obstacle. You're a master!

still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest...la la la la la

Simon and Garfunkel

Whether or not the "vast majority of the human race... has not heard of Mormonism at all" has absolutely nothing to do with the thrust of this whole thread, yet you and others have tried to make it out that way.

Crazy. Talk about moving the goal posts...

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

Mentalgymnast:

My Punky Brewster prediction was based on the substance of whatever Schryver might have to say, not his character.

But let's go with your alternative explanation, anyway.

It kind of looks like I made an inference from facts that were known and available to me, and then played a role in making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Huh. How about that?

[_Darth J]

But of course, "obscurity" is a relative term. The vast majority of the human race either has not heard of Mormonism (any version of it) at all, or has vaguely heard something or other but neither knows nor cares about anything of substance regarding Mormonism.

We're going to have to nickname you "weasel". You have an innate talent for weaving in and out of every obstacle. You're a master!

still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest...la la la la la

Simon and Garfunkel

Whether or not the "vast majority of the human race... has not heard of Mormonism at all" has absolutely nothing to do with the thrust of this whole thread, yet you and others have tried to make it out that way.

Crazy. Talk about moving the goal posts...

Regards,
MG

Mentalgymnast:

Pointing out your special pleading is not moving the goalposts.