DiscussMormonism.com

mentalgymnast wrote:...
Would anyone else besides Joseph Smith have been able to do a better job at accomplishing what needed to be done (the restoration)...

Oh, I suppose that William Smith might have done about as good a job. He and
Joseph appear to have been "two peas from the same pod," from all that I can
determine. Of course William was a bit young for the job. So, if the Book of Mormon HAD
to be published to the world in 1830, William might have needed another
couple of years to get up to speed.

Then there was Alvin -- who some say was a designated prophet himself, or
at least a money-digger. I supose that, had Alvin not died so early, he might
have put a peepstone in a hat and played Palmyra seer well enough.

on the assumption(s) that God had a work to do and that lost
truths/authority had actually been taken from the earth (apostasy)...

That's a pretty big assumption. I have no testimony of such a thing -- although
I am a dedicated Restorationist and would be more than happy to see people
trying to get back to Jesus' Gospel, as it was being lived out and communicated
nearly 2000 years ago.

What "truths?" -- that God was once as man is now? -- That Adam came into
this world with one of his wives, to become our God? -- That Zelph was a
white Lamanite, from whom the curse of dark skin had been partly lifted? --
That there is a plurality of gods in the Cosmos? -- That Joe Smith should have
been elected President in 1844? -- That the Great and Abominable Church
removed a prohibition of infant baptism from the Bible? -- That "Mor-mon
means "more-good?" -- That in six dispensations the Gospel and priesthood
had been taken from the earth, but that in the seventh dispensation the
Prophet cannot lead the Church astray? -- That the Council of Fifty was a
necessary part of the pre-Millennial Political Kingdom of God? -- That Fanny
Alger had to be f_cked?

Or, is the great "truth" summed up in the precept that we earthlings
can function in a religion only so long as we have priestcrafters standing
between us and our ultimate destiny, to collect tithing and hand out
recommends for individual "worthiness?"

and that Jesus Christ is actually who Christians claim him to be.
The very Son of God.
....

Or spirit-brother of Satan, begat by spiritual intercourse in the same way?

Sorry, none of the "truths" of Mormonism ring "true" with me. I would not
trust its leaders to teach my grandkids, run my country, or prepare my
annual tax forms.

Follow them if you wish. That is your choice. But don't hope to convince
others to join in the pyramid scheme, based upon mental gymnastics.

UD

mentalgymnast wrote:
Lack of interest? Lack of a good candidate? To me, it seems as though this is an important thing to consider and think about and resolve. Critics throw out Joseph Smith, but who would be the alternative? I come back to my original response to Schmo. Would anyone like to play?


Regards,
MG

In other words, who would have been better at being Joseph Smith than Joseph Smith?

All you are doing is looking backwards, connecting dots, and pronouncing the dots as God's will. Inventions are created, modified and survive. It happens all the time.

Please answer this. Who would have been the best person for creating the Mormon church if there is no God? This question is just as fair as yours.

Gadianton wrote:

MG wrote:Critics throw out Joseph Smith, but who would be the alternative?

Secular critics would throw out anyone, MG.

True. Unless there is common ground there is very little to discuss. Thus my questions to PP.

Gadianton wrote:For that matter, most believers would to as they do not accept the premise of needing a restoration.

True. Unless there is common ground there is very little to discuss.

Gadianton wrote:It just so happens Joseph Smith makes every critic's life easier because they can throw him out on TBM criteria.

True again.

Gadianton wrote:Mormons put a lot of stock -- in the Chapel at least -- in the foundational events of Mormonism which include the righteousness, bravery, and morally exceptional lives of Joseph Smith and Co which stand in contrast to the wicked ministers of the time and the conspirators against the early church.

True.

Gadianton wrote:If Joseph Smith was the perfect saint, the argument would just stay in the realms of evidence for any claims that can be examined emperically and philosophical debates about the existence of God in general or why we should believe he'd do X and Y vs. P and Z.

No big disagreement there.

MG: Who would/could have accomplished what he did?

Trevor already gave several excellent examples of why this is a suspect question. Who else could have been the drummer for The Beatles and their significance and fame remain unchanged?

Irrelevant. Comparing a rock and roll band to the complexity of God's dealings/works with mankind and how he sets things up or plans things out is irrational.

MG: Who would have had the personal characteristics and be THE ONE to bring the church to a point at which it (the Brighamite faction) continued to grow and flourish to what we see today?

Gad: It's really a side issue because the argument that Joseph Smith is unlikely God's chosen is made on the assumptions of TBM views of morality not that he didn't have a rather unique set of talents that made him able to do what he did. If you reject the need for Joseph Smith to have any common decency whatsoever in order to qualify as the Lord's second only to Jesus Christ, then there is hardly an argument questioning his qualifications.

Blue... that is the operational assumption (TBM mode) of the critics as they bash Joseph Smith.

Red... of course not!

So far no other prospects besides Joseph Smith in my hypothetical question. Why not one of the other restorationists? Why not one of the well known and respected leaders in early America?

Off to work. I don't like working on Saturdays... back later.

Regards,
MG

MG,

Let’s examine just what your task is.

MG stated:
Would anyone else besides Joseph Smith have been able to do a better job at accomplishing what needed to be done (the restoration)...on the assumption(s) that God had a work to do and that lost truths/authority had actually been taken from the earth (apostasy)...and that Jesus Christ is actually who Christians claim him to be. The very Son of God.

Your challenge seems pointless in that you have established none of the assertions essential to make the original post.

As Jersey girl observed:
There was no visitation by an angel (unless metaphorically) or Jesus and God.

There was no stone box.
There were no gold plates (unless metaphorically).
There was no divine assisted translation of the Book of Mormon.
The contents of the Book of Mormon never took place.
There were no alternate messages on the papyri.
The Book of Abraham was a hoax.
Nothing was restored.

Much more importantly, no God claims have been established. Your “challenge” begs all issues surrounding the assumption: God. You seem oblivious to the fact that there are more than 1,500 groups (called denominations, sects, cults) which have a wide variety of God notions.


Your challenge, MG, is to establish God. Further, it is your challenge to establish that your notion of God is valid, correct, reliable. It’s a monumental challenge for you MG. Otherwise you are but one among many making claims as well as assumptions inherent in your notion of “challenge.”

Prehistoric man had, at best, some emerging superstition. Religion evolved as an effort to legitimize superstition in the form of godsplural. Only with the passage of time, the accumulation of different perspectives, was the doctrinal shift to the notion of God a part of human evolution. It required primitive communication and primitive symbols (language). From the invention of gods as explanation, human evolution produced the further, and different invention of God in the singular. It is there that the above reference to more than 1,500 groups have come into existence in human evolution of language, thought, and doctrines contained within that language.

So your challenge, MG is to establish a credible God in the singular. Your wholesale assumptions in this “challenge” are not established.

My challenge to you, MG, is to establish God as opposed to gods. After and only after you are able to do that is anything remotely like your “challenge” anything which requires address.

In short, prove that your God exists at all. Failure on your part to do that makes your posts of zero consequence.

JAK

Sheesh....................anybody that God chose would have done just fine. It wouldn't matter who it was as long
as God was behind them. They would have had to have known Martin Harris though. Could God have chosen someone besides Martin Harris to lose the 116 pages? Who would have been better than Martin Harris?

mentalgymnast wrote:

Polygamy-Porter wrote:Without using any Mormon theology, tell us why was there a need for a "restoration"?

This is a good question.

A few questions first:

Do believe in God? One in whom we are created in his own image?

Do you believe that the Bible is God's word, or at least that God is "in the book", so to speak? In other words's that it is an imperfect yet relevant/valid account and aid in learning of God's interactions and dealings with his children through prophets and chosen servants in ancient times?

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and came to earth as an example, mediator, and redeemer of mankind?

Do you believe that God (assuming that you believe he exists) wants us to be happy, become like him, and have all that he has? Analogous to the what you would like your own children to have, if not more, as it compares/relates to all that you've had or experienced that has given you happiness/joy in your life.

Let's start there.

Regards,
MG

Do you write the script for the online chat missionaries? Because that is the same drivel they use to change the subject when I ask them same question.

I lead them on with yes on their questions, but let me answer your questions.

No
No
No
and
NO.

If God wanted the church to end up in Utah, all He had to do was tell his One True Prophet to move to Utah. There was no need for all the convolutions in between.

Your argument seems to rest on the premise that since the church survived and thrived, then Joseph had to be a real prophet.* Every other church that has survived and thrived, but which you would deem to be not "the one true church" immediately destroys that argument.

*Of course, perhaps I'm misreading your argument and you're not making the argument I have attributed to you here. Perhaps your argument is simply that Joseph Smith's unique life contributed to a cascade of events that resulted in the church moving West, which resulted in the church surviving and thriving. If that's all your argument is, that is self-evident and of zero import.

Aside from that, for your challenge, there are plenty of decent human beings who don't habitually lie and manipulate people. Any of them would have been a better candidate for "God's representative" on the earth than Joseph Smith, who had established a long pattern of deception and manipulation prior to his involvement in creating a church. (In other words, God's first guideline should be to NOT pick a "prophet" who has been telling people he can see buried treasures in a rock and taking their money for the job) Even businesses understand the importance of image which can be conveyed through a representative, and businesses are led by mere mortals. If God cannot understand such a simple concept, then God is pathetic.

So here's my challenge to you: critics have claimed that Ron Hubbard was a poor vehicle to restore truth about mankind's origin to the earth. And yet the Scientology religion has survived and thrived. Ron Hubbard's unique life created a cascade of events that resulted in that religion surviving and thriving. So name a candidate who would have been better as a vehicle to restore truth about mankind's origins.

The premise relies on there being a god; which god? of course a "Mormon-esque" God, who conspires with fate and intervenes in human affairs for capricious reasons and "chooses" people for purposes only known to Him. This type of god can do any weird thing He wants to. Literally anybody could be the chosen one, if God so chooses. A child-monk in Tibet. A dirty hag with warts and a black cat. A religious reformer who sees corruption in the system. Even a luckless chap named Brian <nods to Sethbag>. It falls to those who follow to then invent myriad reasons elaborating why the chosen one was God's choice. It isn't even hard to do.

God could chose anyone to restore the gospel.

Is mentalgymnastics really saying God couldn't choose someone other than Joseph Smith?

The Book of Mormon and the Bible both show that The Priesthood was never taken from the earth. The Three Nephites and John the Beloved have it still and have never left.

Strange Joseph gets 'restored' something that was here all along, isn't it?

Where do the FabFour figure into LDS restoration claims?

mentalgymnast wrote:C'mon all you Joseph Smith bashers, let's come up with something or someone better to meet the challenge in regards to the hypothetical question I've put out there.

Why would one need to be a "Joseph Smith basher" to conclude that the LDS Restoration was not necessary? One would have to be a dissatisfied Christian in the Western tradition to even begin to think, at least in historical terms, that such a thing was called for. If one is not a Christian, and particularly a Western Christian who is dissatisfied with Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism, then there is no need to look for a "restoration." Nothing was lost that needed restoring.