DiscussMormonism.com

I've been thinking that for a lot of people, nothing Joseph Smith could ever have said or done would affect their belief in him as a prophet. Shady business dealings? Nope. Lies? Not a chance. Suspect sexual behavior? No way.

So, what would do it? If he had been, say, a serial murderer, would that change anyone's opinion, or would you guys just say, "I know he was a prophet, and he must have had a good reason for doing that"?

Runtu wrote:I've been thinking that for a lot of people, nothing Joseph Smith could ever have said or done would affect their belief in him as a prophet. Shady business dealings? Nope. Lies? Not a chance. Suspect sexual behavior? No way.

So, what would do it? If he had been, say, a serial murderer, would that change anyone's opinion, or would you guys just say, "I know he was a prophet, and he must have had a good reason for doing that"?

Joe didn't have to be a serial murderer. Porter rockwell did that for him or at least attempted to.

Joe could have raped a child, photographed it and printed it in the Millenial star. the jackasses wold still come up with a reason to ignore it and a minority would even justify it.

The only answer Mormons accept is the answer fed to them by the corporation.

Runtu wrote:I've been thinking that for a lot of people, nothing Joseph Smith could ever have said or done would affect their belief in him as a prophet. Shady business dealings? Nope. Lies? Not a chance. Suspect sexual behavior? No way.

So, what would do it? If he had been, say, a serial murderer, would that change anyone's opinion, or would you guys just say, "I know he was a prophet, and he must have had a good reason for doing that"?

Folks, listen up. We won't have our LDS posters subject to this kind of constant badgering. We have an asked and answered policy here and the critics time and time again have failed to provide us with the definition of a prophet.

Runtu wrote: So, what would do it? If he had been, say, a serial murderer, would that change anyone's opinion, or would you guys just say, "I know he was a prophet, and he must have had a good reason for doing that"?

Nope, serial murderer wouldn't do it either.

If he supported and bet on dog fights, maybe...

I think the fact that he wanted to be a politician says it all.

Some Schmo wrote:I think the fact that he wanted to be a politician says it all.

I think the fact that he didn't get elected says more.

Runtu wrote:I've been thinking that for a lot of people, nothing Joseph Smith could ever have said or done would affect their belief in him as a prophet. Shady business dealings? Nope. Lies? Not a chance. Suspect sexual behavior? No way.

So, what would do it? If he had been, say, a serial murderer, would that change anyone's opinion, or would you guys just say, "I know he was a prophet, and he must have had a good reason for doing that"?

The God of Christianity and Mormonism is a genocidal murderer. What Joseph Smith has done is peanuts compared to that. If they can rationalize away genocide, why are we suprised that they can rationalize away Joseph Smith's particular moral failings?

I don't really agree with the title of the post. If a God really did exist, and that God really did choose a person on Earth and appoint them his deputy, with the title of "Prophet", then it would be that God and that God alone who could disqualify that person from their role. It wouldn't be our job to judge them in terms of fitness for the job or whatever. That'd be up to God, and if God were OK with it, then I guess God's OK with it and that's it, take it or leave it. And that is, I think, how a lot of LDS apologists approach the issue. They believe that God really did appoint Joseph Smith as his deputy on earth, and so whatever Joseph Smith may have done, if God was OK with it, then there's really nothing more to be said about it.

I, however, believe that it's important, by that logic, to know whether God actually did choose that person or not. First off, I don't believe that God actually exists, so by definition nobody was ever appointed by God to be his Prophet on earth. That rules out Joseph Smith and everyone else. But even if we posited that God did exist, how would we know that he'd chosen Joseph Smith to be his Prophet? And here's where the rubber hits the road.

The mopologists, and other LDS, will argue that their "spiritual witness" is sufficient for them to be sure that Joseph Smith really was called as a Prophet. That is, they feel in their hearts that the Holy Ghost has told them that Joseph Smith really was called of God to be his Prophet. So, with that in mind, the evidence of Joseph's deeds is swept under the rug as irrelevent, because if God chose him, then God was apparently OK with whatever Joseph Smith did, so who are they to question it?

I don't believe that this "spiritual witness" is reliable, and I believe it's important to look at what Joseph did, and what Joseph claimed God made him do, and decide if these things are consistent with the notion of God as taught in the religion overall. If there are inconsistencies, that is evidence that Joseph was likely not really called by God. So, for example, if one believes that committing adultery behind his wife's back and lying to her about it would be inconsistent with the role of Prophet of a God who actually existed, then if Joseph did that, chances are he wasn't actually a true Prophet. If Joseph actually did make up the Book of Abraham, saying it was translated scripture from the papyrus, but in fact he invented it in his own mind, then that's further evidence that he wasn't really a Prophet. The mopologist, however, since they already assume Joseph Smith was a Prophet because of their "spiritual witness", is forced to say hey, God chose him, God was apparently OK with what he did, so there's nothing for me to think about.

It really does come down to the reliability of the "spiritual witness". If it's valid, then the mopologists may well be right. If it's not valid, then they really should be taking the evidence about Joseph's deeds more seriously. Of course, if God really doesn't exist, then it's all moot anyhow. It's really the understand that the so-called Witness of the Holy Ghost isn't reliable, that allows me to take the next step of being willing to look at Joseph's deeds for evidence that he is or is not a true prophet.

For me, it came down knowing that there was a possibility that the church wasn't true, which itself was a very difficult thing to bring myself to admit. Knowing that, I knew I had to come to terms with the viability of "the Spirit" and his alleged witness. Once I'd come to terms with the unreliability of that, the evidence of Joseph's deeds spoke pretty plainly to me, and confirmed the sneaking suspcion I'd come to harbor, that Joseph Smith really wasn't a true prophet of God after all. All of this was worked out before I realized that the evidence for the very existence of God himself was pretty skimpy, and that in fact, there probably isn't even a God at all.

What disqualifies a prophet?

My general rule of thumb is, if they want you to cut off any part of your penis -- False God.

Rules out abraham, and all of his sucessors. :)

Runtu wrote:What disqualifies a prophet?

For the LDS:

If it's the prophet of the LDS church, nothing.
If it's the prophet of another church - it's the fact that he/she's not the prophet of the LDS church.

It's as simple as that.

I think that it would hard for TBM's to explain why they didn't get Missouri when Joseph went with his little army in 1833, or why he lost big time in 1838. I thought both times God was on his side and would carry him to victory.