SatanWasSetUp wrote:What does everyone think of Joseph B. Wirthlin's "do or die" approach to Joseph Smith. He must be accepted as a prophet or rejected as a charlatan. There is no middle ground. Do you agree? Wirthlin leaves no room for a Pious Fraud theory. Because of the specific claims Joseph made, Wirthlin is probably right.
"“Not everything in life is so black and white, but the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our religion seem to be exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, a prophet who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from Moroni’s lips, and eventually received at his hands a set of ancient gold plates that he then translated by the gift and power of God, or else he did not. And if he did not, he would not be entitled to the reputation of New England folk hero, or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, nor would he be entitled to be considered a great teacher, a quintessential American religious leader, or the creator of great devotional literature. If he had lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he would certainly be none of these."
"“I am suggesting that one has to take something of a do-or-die stand regarding the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. Reason and righteousness require it. Joseph Smith must be accepted either as a prophet of God or else as a charlatan of the first order, but no one should tolerate any ludicrous, even laughable middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literally, historically, or theologically” (Christ and the New Covenant [1997], 345–46)."
Joseph B. Wirthlin, “The Book of Mormon: The Heart of Missionary Proselyting,” Ensign, Sep 2002, 13
Is he talking as a man or a seer, prophet and revelator? As a man, of course he is entitled to view things in a way that may not be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Big deal there, many people take similar stands on their favorite sports teams.
