Rough Stone Rolling right over their faith?

[_TAK]

[
My case in point! Now Martin Luther, John Knox and John Calvin would be much better and bring to mind a more positive connotation but Bishop Ric just can't do it. Better to stick with negative connotations.

Why would Joseph Smth be more like Martin Luther or John Knox and not Charles Tayes Russell, Mary Baker Eddy or Ellen White ?

[_BishopRic]

Brilliant!

Cult leaders are often considered Deity (or speaks to "him"), blindly followed by the members, and takes multiple sex partners. How is that a poor comparison to Jones or Koresh?

My case in point! Now Martin Luther, John Knox and John Calvin would be much better and bring to mind a more positive connotation but Bishop Ric just can't do it. Better to stick with negative connotations.

I understand Mormons would like everything to be "positive connotations" about Joseph, but I prefer the truth.

[_Dr. Shades]

Rough Stone Rolling is a terrific book. Of course some members will question the substance of the book but they should expected to know that Joseph Smith was not a perfect individual and had faults as human being.

David Koresh was not a perfect individual and had faults as a human being. For example, he convinced some of his followers that he gets to sleep with their wives and underage daughters.

Of course, that only means that David Koresh was not a perfect individual and had faults as a human being. Convincing some of his followers to let him sleep with their wives and underage daughters does not jepoardize his prophethood in any way, right, why me?

Likewise, if a prophet receives revelation that people should invest in his unlicensed bank, and then the bank fails and all his followers lose their life savings, that only means that the prophet is not a perfect individual and has faults as a human being. It does NOT mean that he uttered a false revelation or that he's a con-artist, right, why me?

Actually, Joseph Smith's faults can be extremely faith promoting as they show a man who also had his struggles and tribulations.

In other words, there's no such thing as a false prophet. Every prophet is a true prophet. If anyone thinks that a prophet is actually a false prophet, then it's actually faith promoting as it shows a man who also had his struggles and tribulations.

Or, if there hypothetically is such a concept as a false prophet, then there's no evidence that such a phenomenon does or has ever existed, since such evidence can be extremely faith promoting as it shows a man who also had his struggles and tribulations.

However, this may escape some members.

Apparently so, since it's absolutely impossible to detect a false prophet.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ah, the inexhaustible pleasures of straw men!

[_Dr. Shades]

Ah, the inexhaustible pleasures of straw men!

Let's face it: Considering why me's argument, what else could I have said?

Let's continue. Why me, I'd like you to answer the following questions, too:

1. Is there, or has there ever been, such a thing as a false prophet? Y/N
2. If you answered "Yes" to question 1, then is it possible to detect a false prophet? Y/N
3. If you answered "Yes" to question 2, then how does one detect a false prophet?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Is there, or has there ever been, such a thing as a false prophet? Y/N

Silly question.

Yes, of course.

If you answered "Yes" to question 1, then is it possible to detect a false prophet? Y/N

Another silly question.

Yes, of course.

If you answered "Yes" to question 2, then how does one detect a false prophet?

By carefully weighing the evidence for his prophethood against the evidence against his prophethood.

Since each case is unique, there is no simple general rule for doing so across the board. It would be silly to suggest otherwise, yet I strongly suspect that you have some such rule in mind or wish whyme to formulate one for you.

[_John Larsen]

Why can't we compare them? Why is that a cheep shot? Who wrote these rules? How is Koresh that much different than Smith?

There were obvious differences, but to compare and contrast these individuals can be nothing but informative.

I don't think so. But they can of course bring to mind connotative references which are not very positive. Thus, these people are brought up by the critics. Now lets look at the details. Koresh, went down with the ship and his followers followed him in a burst of flames. Joseph Smith went alone with a couple of volunteers. Only his brother died with him.

Not for want of trying. I am sure you will recall that Joseph had summoned the Nauvoo Legion to come to his aid--an order that never reached the group. It is not for want of trying.

Plus, after death, the LDS church thrived, the branch davidians died out, more or less.

That is more a function of those who came after Joseph, such as Brigham.

The LDS church is an established church and survived the death of Joseph Smith, much to the dismay of the Mormon haters.

A lot of Churches and organizations have survived, much to the chagrin of their distractors. But that no more makes the Church them true or valuable then it does any of the other groups that have survived. Is the success of the Jehovah witnesses or Pentecostalism a sign of their truth?

Now we can make a comparison perhaps to Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin etc. The connotation would be much more positive. Thus, not used by the critics.

And here we see the real point. You are not looking for useful comparison, you are just looking for positive association.

[_Nevo]

Please, people: it's Charles Taze Russell. Gosh!


By the way, I disagree with MAD's bizarre "Godwin's Law" policy that forbids any mention of David Koresh or Branch Davidians.

While watching the documentary Waco: Rules of Engagement several years ago, I noted a number of interesting similarities between David Koresh and Joseph Smith. Both men:

• were apocalyptic prophets, gathering together the elect against the coming day of judgment
  
• were young and charismatic, and defiant in the face of (government) opposition
  
• practiced polygamy
  
• read themselves into scripture (each found themself mentioned in the Book of Isaiah, for example)
  
• produced scripture

[_Dr. Shades]

If you answered "Yes" to question 2, then how does one detect a false prophet?

By carefully weighing the evidence for his prophethood against the evidence against his prophethood.

That's just it: According to why me's logic, there is no such thing as evidence against someone's prophethood, viz.:

"_____ was not a perfect individual and had faults as human being."

. . . and:

"Actually, _____'s faults can be extremely faith promoting as they show a man who also had his struggles and tribulations."

Since each case is unique, there is no simple general rule for doing so across the board. It would be silly to suggest otherwise, yet I strongly suspect that you have some such rule in mind or wish whyme to formulate one for you.

I'm wishing for why me to tell us why/how any evidence against prophethood--David Koresh's, Marshall Applewhite's, L. Ron Hubbard's, Joseph Smith's, or whomever--can't be neatly discarded via why me's two excuses listed above.

[_cinepro]

Since each case is unique, there is no simple general rule for doing so across the board. It would be silly to suggest otherwise, yet I strongly suspect that you have some such rule in mind or wish whyme to formulate one for you.

Interesting. Maybe the missionaries could work that principle into their discussions with potential members.