DiscussMormonism.com

mentalgymnast wrote:Not overblown. At least if you give any credence to the Bible as being the inspired word of God and that he spoke to prophets anciently. If Christ was just a man...then this whole exercise is fruitless, I admit.

But what constrains God to choose a 14-year-old boy?

With all the things the first century Christians endured, I don't see any oaths of vengeance in the New Testament. I don't see Paul or Peter calling for avenging the blood of Jesus Christ.

karl61 wrote:With all the things the first century Christians endured, I don't see any oaths of vengeance in the New Testament. I don't see Paul or Peter calling for avenging the blood of Jesus Christ.

Of course, we know so very little about first-century Christians. Frankly, I still find the story about the people who were struck dead by "God" for withholding some of their property from this idyllic little first century Christian church pretty disturbing. Are we so sure they were a bunch of doves?

Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers and held the temple with a group of toughs.

I'd love to play. Count me in:

mentalgymnast wrote:Can you name a particular person, by name, who lived in the early nineteenth century who would have been the "perfect" candidate for God/Christ to restore these lost truths/authority to?

Yes: Count Barnaba Niccolò Maria Luigi Chiaramonti.

Please describe in detail why this individual would have been the better choice over the fourteen year old Joseph Smith. Overwhelming reasons. Such that there would be little room for doubt in your mind that this person was indeed called by God to be the "prophet of the restoration."

Certainly. This man, who during the Spring of 1820 was better known as Pope Pius VII, was the undisputed leader of the largest religious body on earth. As such, he had the ear of literally tens of millions of devout followers. Were he chosen to be the Lord's vessel to restore ancient Christianity, he already had more built-in credibility than any other single human being on the face of the globe. He was recognized as the pre-eminent "face" of Christianity by more people than any other person then living,* and thus the one person who, more than any other, had the right to alter Christian doctrine, practice, etc.

Please don't answer my question with a question.

Your wish is my command.

*Even non-Christians recognized him over any other person as the "face" of Christianity.

Trevor wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:Not overblown. At least if you give any credence to the Bible as being the inspired word of God and that he spoke to prophets anciently. If Christ was just a man...then this whole exercise is fruitless, I admit.

But what constrains God to choose a 14-year-old boy?

So I ask again:

Can you name a particular person, by name, who lived in the early nineteenth century who would have been the "perfect" candidate for God/Christ to restore these lost truths/authority to? Please describe in detail why this individual would have been the better choice over the fourteen year old Joseph Smith. Overwhelming reasons. Such that there would be little room for doubt in your mind that this person was indeed called by God to be the "prophet of the restoration".

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:So I ask again:

So I ask again, "What constrains God such that He chooses a fourteen-year-old- boy?"

Unless you believe that He had to choose one for some reason, then your question is meaningless.

Dr. Shades wrote:Yes: Count Barnaba Niccolò Maria Luigi Chiaramonti.

And we can all predict where the script goes from here.

Trevor wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:Yes: Count Barnaba Niccolò Maria Luigi Chiaramonti.

And we can all predict where the script goes from here.

Probably. But I'd nevertheless like to see mentalgymnast's response.

Mentalgymnast, did you see my post above, the one wherein I took your challenge?

I am not sure I want to interrupt Shades proposal. It does incline me to make an alternative suggestion. I think it would be more workable for God to inspire many people to take steps to further the reconstruction of a Christian faith which is in a perpetual deterioration from people and peoples shortsighted self interest. If many people are inspired they become an invitation to all people to follow the portion of faith they have and take responsiblty toward helping to recreate a better world. It is not necessary we all have the same idea of just how to do that recreation. If our ideas have some respect for working with each other instead of setting one vision , such as my vision, above other peoples then the vision of some 14 year old may help the vision of some old man instead of instigating a never ending fight over whether the correct vision one was the 14 or the 70 year old persons vision.

And for number 10, I'll invite you to nominate your own favorites!

I don't think any of your previous nine is very damaging at all in any sort of truth sense. They're typically only damaging to those who are not very erudite or knowledgable on the issues.

My own nomination would be those in the LDS Church who argue that Creationism/ID is a science.