Joseph Smith's Personal Claim to Fame.

[_mentalgymnast]

But again, the FLDS Church believes in all of the doctrines you listed, and its members have caused a great deal of notoriety associated with Joseph Smith's name in the media.

Therefore, the FLDS Church is the true church.

If that is what the Spirit whispers to your soul, then so be it.

To be honest, however, I don't know that the FLDS church "believes in all the doctrines [I quoted]". I guess we'll take your word for it rather than call you out. What I do know is that the fruits of the FLDS church, as it has evolved over time, don't seem to hold water. At least for me.

But to each his own.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

And the LDS Church is going to have to get past mere replacement level of its membership and do something about retaining members if it wants to be more than a footnote.

I don't think the LDS church is in danger of sinking into obscurity. OTOH, the evidence seems to show that the church is now rising up and out of obscurity as time moves on.

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

I am still waiting for you to show that Joseph Smith's (angel Moroni's) prophecy is NOT unique among the visionaries of his day. I wasn't even talking about numbers and all the other stuff this thread and your comments have gradually migrated to.

The central points of my OP have become somewhat adulterated and mutated into peripherals.

I think that the two points that I made in my OP still stand independent of all the other "stuff" being thrown around here.

Regards,
MG

You've always been implicitly making the argument that it is about numbers, because you keep suggesting that the LDS Church alone is fulfilling this prophecy. Every time you point out how the prophecy is being fulfilled, it is in terms of the LDS Church's advertising/proselytizing/social media/whatever.

I already acknowledged that Joseph Smith's penchant for personal aggrandizement (in degree, anyway) is unique among religious visionaries. But the context of this prophecy is that the church he started (or the church that claims to be the one he started) is going to be known all over the world, taking his name with it. Nobody is going to interpret the prediction attributed to him as his name is going to be notorious, irrespective of the existence of a church proclaiming his name. The prophecy that someone wrote down in Joseph Smith's voice years after the alleged event is in the Pearl of Great Price canonized by the LDS Church, for one thing. Also, you absolutely refuse to allow that other branches of Mormonism might be helping fulfill this prophecy, which means you interpret it in terms of your church, not just Joseph Smith standing alone.

Other religious visionaries did predict their movements being known or going forth or being significant or however you want to phrase it. That is not a unique thing for the founder of a restoration or visionary religious movement to do. Nobody ever prophecies irrelevancy. If someone correctly prophesied that someday nobody will remember me or talk about me, then by its own terms we would not be able to verify that prediction coming true.

Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy, and others are also known for good or evil by "all" nations, kindreds, tongues whatever. They predicted that their respective religious movements would go out unto the world, or words to that effect. It's kind of self-explanatory that when a religious movement gains notoriety, its founder will, too. Is the uniqueness of the prophecy attributed to Joseph Smith and/or Moroni to be found in anything other than the specific way it was phrased or the fact that it specified Joseph Smith?

And as a continuing reminder, mere reference to places the Church nominally has a presence does not prove your point. Joseph Smith failed to foresee that most of the human race would be apathetic about him.

[_mentalgymnast]

...you think that the LDS Church is not merely a footnote to history, based on your perspective that in absolute terms, the number of members the LDS Church pretends to have is significant. But relative to the human race in general, and relative to Islam, Catholicism, Buddhism, Protestantism, etc., Mormonism---whether in general or specifically the LDS version of it---is just a footnote to history.

Well, relative to the human race and all of its creeds, then yes, you're right to the extent that the church isn't well known in areas where the predominant religion(s) are the order of the day, the week, the centuries. Takes a bit of time to get through or to have any influence upon those kinds of numerical/cultural barriers.

The church is working at it though. Line upon line...here a little, there a little.

A statement that is equally applicable to The Church of Jesus Christ, the Community of Christ, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Well, yes, technically speaking I suppose that this may be true. So what? You're partial to the FLDS Church, aren't you?

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

But again, the FLDS Church believes in all of the doctrines you listed, and its members have caused a great deal of notoriety associated with Joseph Smith's name in the media.

Therefore, the FLDS Church is the true church.

If that is what the Spirit whispers to your soul, then so be it.

To be honest, however, I don't know that the FLDS church "believes in all the doctrines [I quoted]". I guess we'll take your word for it rather than call you out.

FLDS Beliefs.

What I do know is that the fruits of the FLDS church, as it has evolved over time, don't seem to hold water. At least for me.

But to each his own.

Regards,
MG

You are willing to allow that people on this message board are fulfilling prophecy by criticizing Joseph Smith, but will not allow the possibility that the FLDS are fulfilling prophecy by the media reporting on their belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

[_Darth J]

A statement that is equally applicable to The Church of Jesus Christ, the Community of Christ, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

]

Well, yes, technically speaking I suppose that this may be true. So what? You're partial to the FLDS Church, aren't you?

Regards,
MG

I'm trying to extract some kind of coherent reasoning from your propositions. So far, what I have come up with is:

A. The Church is true!!!
B. ?
C. The Church is true!!!

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm trying to extract some kind of coherent reasoning from your propositions.

My proposition is that there is reason to cut Joseph Smith some slack as we consider whether or not he carried the mantle of a prophet of God.

That's it.

Now...to arrive at that point in reasoning, however, it is necessary to build the necessary foundation which can bear up the load which will naturally result from having to "prove contraries". It was Joseph himself who said, "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest". How can this transpire and take place unless we find ourselves in real life situations where we are forced to choose between two alternatives, each which can seem at the time to be reasonable? What better sets up an environment in which real choices are made between contraries than to have paradoxical hoops to jump through to reach the the other side of the barrier which separates belief from doubt?

One of the strangest quotes I've read from Joseph Smith is the following:

“You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself."

What did he mean? What is he referring to?

Personally, I think the answer has something to do with his having a foreknowledge, given to him from an angel, of what would happen in regards to his name/reputation as time went on and contraries were settled and put into place. He knew that many people would truly struggle, really struggle, with having to decide whether or not he carried the mantle of a true prophet vs. a charlatan and fraudster, because his foibles were there, front and center, for the world to see. He as a matter of fact and bluntly said that if he hadn't experienced the things that he had, he wouldn't have believed it himself. What a vulnerable and yet at the same time powerful statement to make. Was he referring to the fact that he knew, along with Paul the apostle, that he carried "thorns in the flesh" that would act as barriers/obstacles which would have to be surmounted and penetrated before a reasonable leap of faith could be taken?

Maybe. I don't think it is unreasonable to make this assumption based upon the known historical evidence.

Faith isn't easy. It isn't cheap. Although some would like it be so. There is a price to pay, and then it comes as a gift. We have to knock, we have to sacrifice, we have to do our part to receive the gift. And along the way there have to be real alternatives and choices to choose from. Without contraries and opposites involved in the process, we wouldn't really be making a choice, would we?

The more I think about it, it makes total sense that Joseph would be given a glimpse of the future and be shown a portion of the process/program that would be put in place which would enable people to make real choices rather than easy/pat choices in regards to their personal journey of faith. Part of that process would be that his name would be known for good and evil.

Unfortunately, many choose the easy way which, in my opinion, involves immature doubt and easy dissent without having paid the price to receive the gift of faith.

As far as the other stuff in this thread having to do with the off shoots from the mainline church in Salt Lake, I'm just not interested in going there. It's either brother Brigham and the resulting line of authority coming through his successors or it's not worth looking at, in my opinion.

Your mileage may vary.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

My proposition is that there is reason to cut Joseph Smith some slack as we consider whether or not he carried the mantle of a prophet of God.

That's it.

Why should I give one person more slack then another?

Now...to arrive at that point in reasoning, however, it is necessary to build the necessary foundation which can bear up the load which will naturally result from having to "prove contraries". It was Joseph himself who said, "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest".

Then prove with evidence the earliest date in which the statement was made. So far I only see about 1838. This is not evidence that it really happened. He was already known in several countries in the world, and was the head of a growing religion. Why should this be any different then the others who have boasted/prophesied/predicted of what was already happening or what they thought would happen. Most are usually vague like the one here with Joseph, and his had already happened to a fair extent.

How can this transpire and take place unless we find ourselves in real life situations where we are forced to choose between two alternatives, each which can seem at the time to be reasonable? What better sets up an environment in which real choices are made between contraries than to have paradoxical hoops to jump through to reach the the other side of the barrier which separates belief from doubt?

This is the mistake many make to believe without good reasons like you and many others in other religions.

One of the strangest quotes I've read from Joseph Smith is the following:

“You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself."

What did he mean? What is he referring to?

It is not relevant. We look at the evidence to see if it fits with his claims. Perfection is not demanded, but behavior does play an important role in whether one should be believed. We all tend to be a little hypocritical with are own beliefs. I was with LDS.

Personally, I think the answer has something to do with his having a foreknowledge, given to him from an angel, of what would happen in regards to his name/reputation as time went on and contraries were settled and put into place. He knew that many people would truly struggle, really struggle, with having to decide whether or not he carried the mantle of a true prophet vs. a charlatan and fraudster, because his foibles were there, front and center, for the world to see. He as a matter of fact and bluntly said that if he hadn't experienced the things that he had, he wouldn't have believed it himself. What a vulnerable and yet at the same time powerful statement to make. Was he referring to the fact that he knew, along with Paul the apostle, that he carried "thorns in the flesh" that would act as barriers/obstacles which would have to be surmounted and penetrated before a reasonable leap of faith could be taken?

His statement is not that unique. At least as unique as any of the others who have said similar things.

Maybe. I don't think it is unreasonable to make this assumption based upon the known historical evidence.

Known historical evidence does not support Joseph's claims.

Faith isn't easy. It isn't cheap. Although some would like it be so.

For me faith was the easy way out. The real cost was accepting the reality the church was not true.

There is a price to pay, and then it comes as a gift. We have to knock, we have to sacrifice, we have to do our part to receive the gift. And along the way there have to be real alternatives and choices to choose from. Without contraries and opposites involved in the process, we wouldn't really be making a choice, would we?

Been there. Hopefully I have grown a little wiser. :) The choice when confronted with evidence is whether to stubbornly hold to false beliefs or rise up and choose to go with reality. This is much harder then hoe many who choose the easier route to maintain belief.

Unfortunately, many choose the easy way which, in my opinion, involves immature doubt and easy dissent without having paid the price to receive the gift of faith.

You mean the harder path. You choose to have faith even against the evidence. This was not a gift but most likely the easy choice for you as it has been for many others.

As far as the other stuff in this thread having to do with the off shoots from the mainline church in Salt Lake, I'm just not interested in going there. It's either brother Brigham and the resulting line of authority coming through his successors or it's not worth looking at, in my opinion.

And you can't see the problem with this line of thinking, and why it is not a surprise that you would think this way. Anyways, can you show that Joseph told anyone at an early time that his name would be known for good or evil all over the world. It not like others have not boasted in similar ways about themselves or their religion, and certainly some of them will come true. The ones that don't are easily forgotten and lost.

[_beastie]

I see no reason to "cut Joseph some slack" in terms of judging whether or not he was a true prophet.

If any other person, from any other sect or cult, engaged in the behavior Joseph Smith engaged in, LDS would shudder to see his/her followers pleading for slack to be cut.

The fact that Joseph Smith realized he was going to get a bad reputation is of as little interest as the earlier Jeffs quote. Um, yeah, if you repeatedly engage in behavior your host culture views as horrific and abominable, while leading a religion that the host culture views as questionable, you're probably going to get a bad reputation.

Hey, I'm a prophet.

[_why me]

I see no reason to "cut Joseph some slack" in terms of judging whether or not he was a true prophet.

If any other person, from any other sect or cult, engaged in the behavior Joseph Smith engaged in, LDS would shudder to see his/her followers pleading for slack to be cut.

The fact that Joseph Smith realized he was going to get a bad reputation is of as little interest as the earlier Jeffs quote. Um, yeah, if you repeatedly engage in behavior your host culture views as horrific and abominable, while leading a religion that the host culture views as questionable, you're probably going to get a bad reputation.

Hey, I'm a prophet.

And yet, I have never seen him as being evil. In fact, just the opposite. His letters to emma when he was in prison are full of love for her, for the kids and for god. I don't see any part of Joseph's anguish that he was an evil man out to commit a fraud against god. Now he certainly knew his own imperfections and he seemed to suffer accordingly from them in terms of his own conscience. But I don't see an evil man in the life of Joseph Smith. In fact, I see a guy caught between a rock and a hard place...having to do what god wanted him to do and his own sense how difficult it all is.

We also need to remember that from the very beginning he was being judged by the members and many left the faith over his behavior because they had the impression that a prophet needed to be perfect or judged according to the protestant calvinist mindset that many of the members came from. And Joseph himself said to the members not to expect him to be perfect.

Also, it were Jeffs wives that ratted him out. Just the opposite for Joseph. Not one wife said a negative word about him after he died or during the whole process of being a plural wife. And that speaks volumes.