Where is the north land where the 10 tribes are?

[_mentalgymnast]

There are no indications/evidence that any parts of JSjr's entire charade (Mormonism) are anything but his speculations. With this question, MG, you have started down the slippery slope to reality.

So, we know where you stand. Prophets are always speaking as 'false' prophets. They can't be a true prophet and also be allowed the freedom/humanity of being their own person and speculating...thinking...like the rest of us.

To me, that would be rather sad...and even unfair...if that's the way God would require prophets to live.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

There are no indications/evidence that any parts of JSjr's entire charade (Mormonism) are anything but his speculations. With this question, MG, you have started down the slippery slope to reality.

So, we know where you stand. Prophets are always speaking as 'false' prophets. They can't be a true prophet and also be allowed the freedom/humanity of being their own person and speculating...thinking...like the rest of us.

To me, that would be rather sad...and even unfair...if that's the way God would require prophets to live.

Regards,
MG

It would be a better discussion if you would be honest here and not make straw-man arguments. No one is suggesting a prophet could not speculate. You need to provide arguments why certain claims or beliefs a person like Joseph makes fits speculation as apposed to claims of revelation/knowledge from God. Joseph here is clearly claiming revelation/knowledge from God. He makes the claim of it being a vision from God and he canonizes it. Now how about moon men. I am not aware of these claims being attached to any revelation/knowledge from God. Are you? If not then speculation can be a reasonable argument. One problem though is Joseph can give a lot of detail, but he is known for making fantastic stories.

[_mentalgymnast]

No one is suggesting a prophet could not speculate.

Are you speaking for everyone?

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

The land of the north is the place where the stone giants and the Jaredites live.

[_Shulem]

There are no indications/evidence that any parts of JSjr's entire charade (Mormonism) are anything but his speculations. With this question, MG, you have started down the slippery slope to reality.

So, we know where you stand. Prophets are always speaking as 'false' prophets. They can't be a true prophet and also be allowed the freedom/humanity of being their own person and speculating...thinking...like the rest of us.

To me, that would be rather sad...and even unfair...if that's the way God would require prophets to live.

Regards,
MG

I've read Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith several times and recall him offering his ideas and opinions about a variety of things and he makes that quite clear. But when it's not his opinion he states his authority and proclaims things in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Spirit. Consider Smith's authoritative claims regarding Facsimile No. 2. What does he say?

The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.

Whose right? The right to translate an unknown language via revelation given by the Holy Ghost to a prophet, seer, and revelator -- The President of the Church along with the Twelve apostles.

[_mentalgymnast]

You need to provide arguments why certain claims or beliefs a person like Joseph makes fits speculation as apposed to claims of revelation/knowledge from God.

The revelations, such as the one in the OP, would be considered non-speculation. Speculation would be those things that a prophet might say that are not in the revelations and/or have not been revealed.

On the assumption that there are prophets that speak for God, would you allow for that?

Regards,
MG

[_Shulem]

Speculation would be those things that a prophet might say that are not in the revelations and/or have not been revealed.

That's pretty much how the Christian religion considers it. The canon is closed. Prophets and revelation are a thing of the past and all has been revealed until Christ comes again. Nothing new to say. Anything else is just speculation.

Are you a Christian, MG? You must be.

[_Themis]

You need to provide arguments why certain claims or beliefs a person like Joseph makes fits speculation as apposed to claims of revelation/knowledge from God.

The revelations, such as the one in the OP, would be considered non-speculation. Speculation would be those things that a prophet might say that are not in the revelations and/or have not been revealed.

On the assumption that there are prophets that speak for God, would you allow for that?

Regards,
MG

I already provided that argument so yes. Is it harder to argue speculation if Joseph is proving too much detail. An example would be Zelph the white lamanite. Does this fit speculation or did he give too much detail? Especially detail he would not have gotten from anyone else.

[_mentalgymnast]

I've read Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith several times and recall him offering his ideas and opinions about a variety of things and he makes that quite clear. But when it's not his opinion he states his authority and proclaims things in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Spirit. Consider Smith's authoritative claims regarding Facsimile No. 2. What does he say?

The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.

This statement is inscribed by Willard Richards. Between late 1841 and early 1842, correct? There are no earlier iterations that have survived. And it was copied from a prior draft made at another time, right?

Is it a direct quote from Joseph Smith? Can the dots...words...be connected directly to him?

If not, should we conclude that this statement is authoritative?

On the other hand, is it reasonable to conclude/hypothesize that this statement was made under, as you say, "his authority and proclaims things in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Spirit"?

Regards,
MG

[_Shulem]

This statement is inscribed by Willard Richards. Between late 1841 and early 1842, correct? There are no earlier iterations that have survived. And it was copied from a prior draft made at another time, right?

Is it a direct quote from Joseph Smith? Can the dots...words...be connected directly to him?

If not, should we conclude that this statement is authoritative?

On the other hand, is it reasonable to conclude/hypothesize that this statement was made under, as you say, "his authority and proclaims things in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Spirit"?

The statement is authoritative and is direct from President Smith, himself. The Explanations were revelations from Joseph Smith. He oversaw the work and carefully managed the press. He was fully responsible for the presentation in form and word. After the printing, the prophet proudly stood by his work. The church fully embraced the revelations. Do you?