DiscussMormonism.com

Dale,

Thanks for your response to me, I started a new thread so I wouldn't derail the other.

8. Smith and Rigdon were both visionaries and both believed themselves, as well
as the other, to be blessed with divine gifts. Smith believed Rigdon possessed what
amounted to a wonderful addition to the Holy Bible. Rigdon believed that Smith was
a true seer, who could add important information to the beliefs and actions of the
extinct Nephites. Together Rigdon and Smith cooperated to expand the "record"
of the extinct Christian Americans.

What makes you believe they actually bought into this from a "religious" point of view? My take and "feelings " of Joseph Smith is that he was a con, and in it for potential gains. I would base allot of my "feelings" on this on who his prophecies show a pattern of "coming forth" to get him out of trouble.


Also, is there any proof that Spalding used to word "Nephite", seems a remember reading something about a relative saying something about that, but could be wrong?


Thanks for you time

Mark

Markk wrote:...
My take and "feelings " of Joseph Smith is that he was a con, and in it for potential gains.
...

Well, as I said, I am merely attempting to outline a "possibility." Is it possible that
Smith believed in Rigdon's religion (if only for a short period)? My guess is that such
a thing was possible, and that the Christian primitivism promoted by Rigdon gave
Smith a means whereby he could reconcile his Mother's Presbyterianism with his
father's Universalism. When the two of them were baptized into their son's new
church, I suppose that young Joe breathed a tremendous sigh of relief. But the
very next day he may have ceased believing in the religion he was peddling.

As for Smith as a "con man," I sincerely hope you will take the time to read this:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-ConMan.htm

Also, is there any proof that Spalding used to word "Nephite", seems a remember reading something
about a relative saying something about that, but could be wrong?

Some evidence, but no real proof. If the most recent Book of Mormon "word-print" study
is ever independently verified by disinterested third-party researchers, I may have enough
"proof" therein for my humble purposes.

Cheers,
Uncle Dale

Uncle Dale wrote:...


As for Smith as a "con man," I sincerely hope you will take the time to read this:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-ConMan.htm
...

By the way -- I'm still working on the last three sections of this on-line essay and
would be happy to include the insights of other students of Mormon history ---

Uncle Dale

Uncle Dale wrote:

Uncle Dale wrote:...


As for Smith as a "con man," I sincerely hope you will take the time to read this:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-ConMan.htm
...

By the way -- I'm still working on the last three sections of this on-line essay and
would be happy to include the insights of other students of Mormon history ---

Uncle Dale

Dale,

Thanks, I will read appreciate your time

MG

Hi Dale,

Read your link, enjoyed it, I have a question for you?

You wrote on another thread and it got me thinking (a rare thing):

I still identify myself as a Latter Day Saint, and I can freely admit "that there never really were ancient plates with ancient writing on them." I'm not sure that a Mormom is allowed to say that, without facing a possible church court and excommunication.

Please don't take this personal, it could be anyone, I believe at one point I was in this boat.

Question:

Knowing in your heart that the story told by Smith is not what he said it was, and yet you still accept the LDS faith even though you believe that one of the most important "Mormon stories", second only to the first vision, is just not true, is this the fruit of a confidence man?

Again enjoyed your writing

Take care

MG

Markk wrote:...

Question:

Knowing in your heart that the story told by Smith is not what he said it was, and yet you still
accept the LDS faith

Not exactly. I defend the Reorganized LDS faith -- which is better defined as "trust in God"
than belief in Joseph Smith. RLDS faith is sometimes professed in terms of beliefs, but it
is non-creedal and allows for divergent beliefs in many instances.

My interest is primarily in the continuation of a "covenant people," which is a biblical
precept mostly forgotten among mainstream Christians. Old style Presbyterians and
the Kirk of Scotland still understand covenant theology -- but I think that the Latter Day
Saints implement it more successfully. Besides -- it's my ethnic group.

even though you believe that one of the most important "Mormon stories", second only to
the first vision, is just not true, is this the fruit of a confidence man?

If we are defining "confidence man" in its broadest sense, then we are not necessarily
condemning the "latter day work" of instilling confidence in people. It is not the premise,
nor the desired end we should be condemning, when we criticize Joseph Smith for
having been a "confidence man." What is problematic was his means and his message.

His means were secrecy, deception and manipulation.

His message was a continually changing variety of Christian primitivism which evolved
from an attempt at copying Apostolic Christianity into a hierarchical polytheism.

I cannot accept Smith's means nor his message -- but I can accept the contemporary
members of the religion he initiated. I see more promise for the future among them
than among most other religious groups I've encountered.

UD

Uncle Dale wrote:

Markk wrote:...

Question:

Knowing in your heart that the story told by Smith is not what he said it was, and yet you still
accept the LDS faith

Not exactly. I defend the Reorganized LDS faith -- which is better defined as "trust in God"
than belief in Joseph Smith. RLDS faith is sometimes professed in terms of beliefs, but it
is non-creedal and allows for divergent beliefs in many instances.

My interest is primarily in the continuation of a "covenant people," which is a biblical
precept mostly forgotten among mainstream Christians. Old style Presbyterians and
the Kirk of Scotland still understand covenant theology -- but I think that the Latter Day
Saints implement it more successfully. Besides -- it's my ethnic group.

even though you believe that one of the most important "Mormon stories", second only to
the first vision, is just not true, is this the fruit of a confidence man?

If we are defining "confidence man" in its broadest sense, then we are not necessarily
condemning the "latter day work" of instilling confidence in people. It is not the premise,
nor the desired end we should be condemning, when we criticize Joseph Smith for
having been a "confidence man." What is problematic was his means and his message.

His means were secrecy, deception and manipulation.

His message was a continually changing variety of Christian primitivism which evolved
from an attempt at copying Apostolic Christianity into a hierarchical polytheism.

I cannot accept Smith's means nor his message -- but I can accept the contemporary
members of the religion he initiated. I see more promise for the future among them
than among most other religious groups I've encountered.

UD

Hi Dale,


Sorry, I misunderstood what faith you belong to, I assumed COJCOLDS.

Simply from a Biblical perspective would you consider Joseph Smith a false prophet?

My interest is primarily in the continuation of a "covenant people," which is a biblical
precept mostly forgotten among mainstream Christians.

I would argue that the very most of Protestant faiths are "Covenant people", in that they would teach they are under the covenant of Grace, a new law, the law of Grace. Got a link for your definition of the convent the LDS church is under, I would love to read it?

Thanks

Mark
John 1:12

Markk wrote:...
Simply from a Biblical perspective would you consider Joseph Smith a false prophet?

I'm not sure I would even admit Smith into the ranks of false prophets -- perhaps
"prophet-pretenders" would be a better peer group for him. Which does not mean
that God did not make some use of Smith. The biblical God can make use of plagues,
talking asses and the scourge of the Assyrian army for various purposes.

By the standards of Deuteronomy, Smith became a false prophet when his revelation
regarding the selling of the Book of Mormon copyright was voiced --- if we can trust David Whitmer's
memory of that episode. But then again, by the standard of having every prediction of
the future come true, I would suppose that most "prophets" become "false prophets,"
sooner or later. I have never considered the test of a prophet to be his ability to
perfectly predict the future.

So -- did Joseph Smith, Jr. fulfill a prophetic calling? According to the RLDS and
Community of Christ, yes. According to Dale Broadhurst: "I do not know."

Somehow I doubt that such a testimony would be welcome in an LDS F&T Sunday
meeting: "....and finally, brethren, I stand before you to bear witness of the truth,
that our beloved first President and Martyr, Joseph the Seer, was perhaps a prophet,
or perhaps not......" Sounds like a problem to me.

I would argue that the very most of Protestant faiths are "Covenant people", in that they would teach they are under the covenant of Grace, a new law, the law of Grace. Got a link for your definition of the convent the LDS church is under, I would love to read it?

I probably have something I've written on that subject, somewhere. Let me look.

But for the moment, I will say that I do not believe in dispensational covenants -- one to Noah,
Abraham, one to Moses, one to David, etc.

Rather, I believe in a single covenant, which human beings have become aware of in stages,
throughout sacred history. At one point, it was Israelites superimposing Near Eastern
imperial covenants upon their understanding of YHWH: The emperor will protect his far-flung
subjects, if they promise to obey the emperor -- in witness whereof a covenant is "cut" and
an animal sacrificed (as reward, threat and expiation) -- and a testament of the agreement
is written down and stored away in a sealed casket, etc. etc.

At a later stage in sacred history, I see Isaiah saying that all the nations of the world are
welcome to join in God's Peaceful Kingdom. At a still later stage, I see Jesus re-enacting
the annual meal of remembrance for a dead family member (as mentioned by Jeremiah),
in which the bread is taken prior to the wine (the reverse of the Passover seder), and
telling his disciples that the testament to the covenant was his own body and blood.

At a still later stage, I see latter day saints struggling to fathom what it means to be
a covenant people, while not being so exclusive that they build another Nauvoo, or
construct another golden calf.

I have an interest in Presbyterian covenant theology -- which is Calvinistic and which
is articulated in terms of "the elect" and God's "sovereign grace."

Explain what covenant "the elect" have been participants in, throughout all history,
and you may begin to understand my views.

Problem is -- Calvin's Geneva did no better that Joe Smith's Nauvoo. Our understanding of
what it means to "gather" as a "covenant people" still has some room for evolution.

UD

Uncle Dale wrote:By the standards of Deuteronomy, Smith became a false prophet when his revelation
regarding the selling of the Book of Mormon copyright was voiced --- if we can trust David Whitmer's
memory of that episode. But then again, by the standard of having every prediction of
the future come true, I would suppose that most "prophets" become "false prophets,"
sooner or later. I have never considered the test of a prophet to be his ability to
perfectly predict the future.

Uncle Dale,
I'm not sure if you knew it yet, but the church is trying to spin this differently now. They are now claiming that this was not a false revelation but was conditional of the worthiness of the parties involved. It's in this month's Ensign here:
http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=e5d0a593fc7dd110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Scroll down to where it says "New Information."
So it appears they are now claiming that the previous explanation of "some revelations are of man, the devil, etc. and some are of God" is incorrect.

LDSDoubter wrote:

Uncle Dale wrote:By the standards of Deuteronomy, Smith became a false prophet when his revelation
regarding the selling of the Book of Mormon copyright was voiced --- if we can trust David Whitmer's
memory of that episode. But then again, by the standard of having every prediction of
the future come true, I would suppose that most "prophets" become "false prophets,"
sooner or later. I have never considered the test of a prophet to be his ability to
perfectly predict the future.

Uncle Dale,
I'm not sure if you knew it yet, but the church is trying to spin this differently now. They are now claiming that this was not a false revelation but was conditional of the worthiness of the parties involved. It's in this month's Ensign here:
http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=e5d0a593fc7dd110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Scroll down to where it says "New Information."
So it appears they are now claiming that the previous explanation of "some revelations are of man, the devil, etc. and some are of God" is incorrect.

Yet another example of Mormon hyper-literalism when it comes to "restoring the ancient order of things."
Years back I had the good fortune to marry a Jewish wife, and have found much sanity in listening to
Jewish people describe prophets (other than Moses) as an imperfect set of oddballs -- whom, for
reasons unfathomable, God now and then selected for special callings.

I feel much more comfortable with the Jewish understanding of a prophet, than I do with the modern
LDS version of that calling.

UD