Rough Stone Rolling right over their faith?

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

They already have.

[_cinepro]

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

They already have.

Wow. That's quite progressive.

In my day, I was teaching people that the LDS Prophets were the only true Prophets on the face of the Earth, and that they were unique, distinct and blessed apart from any other so-called Prophets, and the sure way for anyone to know for themselves was to pray about it. And if they got an "answer" that said some other non-LDS prophet was legit, or the LDS Prophet wasn't, then they were misinformed.

I'm quite certain the idea of carefully weighing the evidence for LDS prophethood against the evidence against LDS prophethood never entered the equation. Thinking back, I'm not sure I ever would have admitted there was evidence against LDS Prophethood.

I applaud the current, more rational methodology.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So you already knew about the method, and were just pulling my leg in your standard cynical way.

Got it.




.

[_Scottie]

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."

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.

I'm quite curious to see this answered as well.

[_harmony]

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

You do realize what you just did, right? You put David Koresh on the same plane as Joseph Smith. Are you sure you want to do that?

[_why me]

[

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

I think that the last three do not bring up negative connotations in people's minds as Koresh and Jones do. Of course, if one is a disgruntled JW or SDA, it may bring to mind a negative connotation. Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science do have positive connotation in most people's mind due to The Christian Science Monitor.

Now Martin Luther brought in the reformation and Joseph Smith brought in the Restoration. The other two protestants developed their own line of protestant thought and formed churches accordingly. Joseph Smith did the same. I see some similiarities and a more positive connotation.

[_why me]

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?

What Joseph Smith began begat goodness. And it still does. Koresh on the other hand, begat evil. And we see the end result. And that says much about the two.

[_why me]

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.

Comparisons can be made between most people. And usually such comparisons is as far as it goes. It is just a comparison. But that does not mean that there is equality between comparisons. And it is here that the engagement takes place. But how to prove a prophet? Koresh and Jones led their people to destruction. Joseph Smith did not. He led himself to destruction and the Mormons grew and propered as they followed the word of god with their new prophet BY. And they are still prospering as human beings.

[_Pokatator]

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.

Comparisons can be made between most people. And usually such comparisons is as far as it goes. It is just a comparison. But that does not mean that there is equality between comparisons. And it is here that the engagement takes place. But how to prove a prophet? Koresh and Jones led their people to destruction. Joseph Smith did not. He led himself to destruction and the Mormons grew and propered as they followed the word of god with their new prophet BY. And they are still prospering as human beings.

All that Smith did was put a different twist on that same old scam game. Koresh did the same thing as Smith but just wasn't as good at it. With a few changes of events like a Smith trial, sentence, and imprisonment I could easily see a scenario of Smith & co. ending just like Koresh & co.

Jones was a communist and left his church's whole estate to the Kremlin. Smith was a communist of sorts.

Comparing Smith to Luther is totally out to lunch. Luther never claimed to talk to God or see Him, never formed his own church, etc. It is the deception of talking to God and seeing God that makes Smith the charlatan extraordinaire. Smith led his church into over a 100 different splinter groups, nothing pure and prosperous about that. If you believe Christianity Smith is leading many straight to hell. Nothing you have written proves a prophet yet alone that Joe was a prophet.

What do you have to say about Warren Jeffs? He was exactly like Joe except 185 years later. Joe and BY were both close to being in the same spot as Jeffs.

[Guest]

All that Smith did was put a different twist on that same old scam game. Koresh did the same thing as Smith but just wasn't as good at it. With a few changes of events like a Smith trial, sentence, and imprisonment I could easily see a scenario of Smith & co. ending just like Koresh & co.

Jones was a communist and left his church's whole estate to the Kremlin. Smith was a communist of sorts.

What do you have to say about Warren Jeffs? He was exactly like Joe except 185 years later. Joe and BY were both close to being in the same spot as Jeffs.

The problem is: Jeffs, Koresh, Jones bring up negative connotations. And of course, the events that surround these guys are fresh in our minds. However, for a Joseph Smith comparison, we would need to be there at that time to observe the man himself. But what I do know is this: from Joseph's work, goodness came. From the work of Jeffs, Koresh, and Jones, I see no goodness. And in that regard, there is no comparison. But critics love to bring up the connotations. But it just doesn't work when one considers the end result.

Have you been to Mass? The catholic church has much good in it. I owe a lot to my catholic youth. And I still attend Mass and defend Mormonism on the catholic board. I consider both to be good churches.