why me wrote: prophets are very human with all the faults of any human being.
Why me,
In todays Mormon church, I don't believe Smith could even qualify for a recommend to his own temple - let alone, pass the standard baptism interview in the church he conjured.
The natural man (or humans) do not qualify for baptism or recommends.
I think any responsible God fearing current TBM bishop would summarilly disqualify his ass for advancement in the kingdom.
But Since human is your (the apologist's) argument, why don't you elaborate? . . . . .
It's amazing, when you think about it, that the apologists have conceded this point about LDS prophets. The average chapel Mormon has more faith in LDS prophets than the apologists do, but that's because they don't understand the issues like the apologists do.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
What is the standard one must maintain in order to be a worthy prophet? Are there any?
How about the standards to be a worthy deacon, teacher, priest, elder or patriarch?
Are these standards suspended for one that hold all the keys to a dispensation?
Specifically, what is it that you noticed about Smith's behavior that you were willing to pass critical judgement upon him by labelling him "human". Why the belittling comment? What did he do?
I don't think I would want you to call me "human" without offering further explanation to your vague accusation. Even so, I prefer someone to tell me straight rather than suffer through his inuendo.
Consider, if you will, the LDS attitude towards leaders of other religions. Generally, they would consider them to be the following:
-Well meaning
-Fallible
-Occasionally Inspired, but usually expressing their own opinions based on their own wisdom and learning
-Not speaking for God
From the Pope to Billy Graham, that’s how LDS generally see them. So let us consider that the baseline for a religious leader that isn’t actually a Prophet.
What if the critics and unbelievers in the Church were able to get LDS to reappraise Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders, and get them to slowly move them towards this description of non-LDS religious leaders. What if LDS started to view their leaders less as “Prophets”, and more as prophets?
This is already happening, and it seems to be the apologists leading the charge.
Another hero of why me, Pope Alexander VI was human as well. Never mind that he screwed his daughter. It's what God required at that time in Catholic history.
Inconceivable wrote: In todays Mormon church, I don't believe Smith could even qualify for a recommend to his own temple - let alone, pass the standard baptism interview in the church he conjured.
You must remember these standards have only been codified since then.
Why me is correct that Prophets are only human and as such are subject to human desires and foibles. Our "natural man" is always present, despite the social compacts we make and even if we put our superego into hyperdrive. Lust happens. Big deal.
Inconceivable wrote: In todays Mormon church, I don't believe Smith could even qualify for a recommend to his own temple - let alone, pass the standard baptism interview in the church he conjured.
You must remember these standards have only been codified since then.
Why me is correct that Prophets are only human and as such are subject to human desires and foibles. Our "natural man" is always present, despite the social compacts we make and even if we put our superego into hyperdrive. Lust happens. Big deal.
True, and critics don't disagree with this. Prophets are just people, like the rest of us. Critics simply take it one step further by showing as much obedience to the Mormon prophets as we would any other guy with an opinion.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
why me wrote: prophets are very human with all the faults of any human being.
Why me,
In todays Mormon church, I don't believe Smith could even qualify for a recommend to his own temple - let alone, pass the standard baptism interview in the church he conjured.
The natural man (or humans) do not qualify for baptism or recommends.
I think any responsible God fearing current TBM bishop would summarilly disqualify his ass for advancement in the kingdom.
But Since human is your (the apologist's) argument, why don't you elaborate?
Here is my view: I have said on MAD more than once that the LDS church has treated the life of Joseph Smith as the Soviet Union treated the life of Lenin: almost perfect. And this has created a problem for many members who discover that Joseph Smith was less than perfect. Some can not accept the human side when they read about it in RSR, as an example. But there are others who appreciate the human element to the story. And I can understand why some members may be a little bothered by his human failings and the ignoring of such things in his LDS biographies that may be published by deseret books in the past.
Joseph Smith would qualify for a temple recommend if one believes that god called him to be prophet and to begin the practice of plural marriage. His reputation was under scrutiny from the very beginning as the LDS church was being organized. People came forth and said things about him which were not positive. But these stories would not disqualify him from a temple recommend. Proof is in the pudding. One must have proof. And regardless of any earthly imperfections that he may have, repentance is a wonderful antidote to imperfection.
And so, members who read RSR and are disappointed about not reading a biography of a mystic, should feel strength that Joseph Smith was just like any other man who had life ambitions (and at times failed in these ambitions) and believed that he was called to a 'vocation' and to be prophet.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
DarkHelmet wrote: True, and critics don't disagree with this. Prophets are just people, like the rest of us. Critics simply take it one step further by showing as much obedience to the Mormon prophets as we would any other guy with an opinion.
Now Dark, you need to be truthful here because you are leaving out a fine ingredient in a critics menu: doubt. A critics job is to cast doubt and they attempt to do so by zeroing in on Joseph Smith's imperfections as a human being (and I am not referring to polygamy here). And they do it in such a way that the poor person reading it will suddenly get 'Oh crapitis' when thinking about Joseph Smith.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith