Rough Stone Rolling right over their faith?

[_why me]

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.

Luther and Smith both recognized that something was wrong with the christianity of their time and both attempted to do something about it. Luther with the reformation and rebellion and Smith with the restoration. Eventually, a church was founded after the works of luther. And of course, the Smith legacy is also a church but not in his name.

Martin Luther also had a brief moment when he recognized polygamy:

“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”

— Martin Luther, (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.) and “what is permitted in the Mosaic law, is not forbidden in the Gospel” (De Wette-Seidemann, VI, 239-244; “Corp. Ref.”, III, 856-863)

[_John Larsen]

Martin Luther also had a brief moment when he recognized polygamy:

“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”

— Martin Luther, (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.) and “what is permitted in the Mosaic law, is not forbidden in the Gospel” (De Wette-Seidemann, VI, 239-244; “Corp. Ref.”, III, 856-863)

You should realize that Luther's libertarian "not forbidden in the scriptures" and Smith's "required by divine command at the point of a flaming sword" are completely opposite views.

[_why me]

You should realize that Luther's libertarian "not forbidden in the scriptures" and Smith's "required by divine command at the point of a flaming sword" are completely opposite views.

I think that Luther's view of polygamy had much to do with politics and a prince. But the end result was: both Joseph Smith and Luther recognized polygamy.

[_John Larsen]

You should realize that Luther's libertarian "not forbidden in the scriptures" and Smith's "required by divine command at the point of a flaming sword" are completely opposite views.

I think that Luther's view of polygamy had much to do with politics and a prince. But the end result was: both Joseph Smith and Luther recognized polygamy.

I think that just about everyone who holds the Torah to be a sacred text "recognizes" it in some sense. That is a very weak connection to Luther.

[_cinepro]

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.

What about Benny Hinn, Charles Taze Russell, Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, Edward Cayce, Patience Worth etc.?

This not being MA&D, I guess I'm allowed to ask how Joseph Smith compares to these people when it comes to inciting violence (and resultant deaths) among his followers?

And how can you claim that we know the "end result" for Joseph Smith's work? As long as his followers exist, it is a continuum, and we don't know the "end result" anymore than the "end result" of David Koresh's teachings could have been known in March of 1993. Unless we are to judge Joseph's "work" as it stood at the time of his death, which is a comparison I wouldn't be anxious to make as a believer.

[_Dr. Shades]

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.

Wait a second. . . you're telling us that starting a fake bank in order to pay off your debts by stripping your followers of their life savings is "goodness?" You're also telling us that pretending to see buried treasure in order to bilk Josiah Stowell out of his money is "goodness?" Perhaps you're also telling us that sending men away on missions so that you can "marry" their wives in their absence is "goodness" too?

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.

I'm not asking you to give us comparisons. I'm asking whether or not it is possible to detect a false prophet, and if so, just what counts as evidence of false prophethood, since mistakes of a fallible man are extremely faith-promoting, according to you.

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.

That's only because Jonathan Dunham prevented him from doing so. Had he obeyed Joseph's orders, the Nauvoo Legion would've broken him out of jail. Sure as night follows day, the Illinois militia would've then been called out to quell the rebellion, and the Mormons would've gone up in a cloud of smoke just like the Branch Davidians.

So if Joseph Smith didn't lead his people to destruction, it wasn't for lack of trying.

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.

Since when does being one wife among many, being left destitute and penniless in a small hovel with small children, count as "prospering?"

The problem is: Jeffs, Koresh, Jones bring up negative connotations.

Joseph Smith brings up negative connotations, too.

And of course, the events that surround these guys are fresh in our minds.

So, a false prophet magically transforms into a true prophet just as soon as he's no longer fresh in our minds?

However, for a Joseph Smith comparison, we would need to be there at that time to observe the man himself.

So, you're telling us that the only way to detect a false prophet is to be there at the time to observe the man himself? Wow.

But what I do know is this: from Joseph's work, goodness came.

The Fancher party would disagree, methinks.

From the work of Jeffs, Koresh, and Jones, I see no goodness.

But the followers of Jeffs, Koresh, and Jones saw much goodness.

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.

Then you stand in open rebellion to Bruce R. McConkie, a latter-day prophet, seer, and revelator.

[_JoetheClerk]

"Luther and Smith both recognized that something was wrong with the christianity of their time and both attempted to do something about it."

Luther recognized something was wrong. Joseph Smith did not. Joseph only asked which Church to join, not to usher in a new 'truth'. You are looking at results, not reality.

As for the Bank fraud. If God commanded it and the people followed it one would think it would prosper. It failed because it was a shell game. A con game. Joseph and some fellow leaders made money off it and the followers got screwed. An honest man would pay back every penny rather than try to declare bankruptcy and hide his assets. In the banking fiasco Joseph Smith was nothing more than a typical con man running a pyramid scheme to benefit him and a few buddies.

Getting into sending Orson Hyde on a mission and immediately nailing Orsons wife is asking for trouble. What kind of leader screws the wife of his closest associates? That begs the question of 'foster daughters' who he married and took the inheritance from.

Today he would be a child molester, a bigamist and a con man. Would probably fit right in the Utah LDS scene IF he could even recognize the LDS Church as it is today.

[_why me]

"Luther and Smith both recognized that something was wrong with the christianity of their time and both attempted to do something about it."

Luther recognized something was wrong. Joseph Smith did not. Joseph only asked which Church to join, not to usher in a new 'truth'. You are looking at results, not reality.

Not quite. If you assume that Joseph Smith was a fraud then you must conclude that he saw something wrong with christianity. As a fraudster, he made up the first vision which claimed that all churches are false. Thus, he found something wrong with the existing faiths. Luther also recognized something was wrong.

The results: the luthern church and the LDS church.

[_why me]

.

As for the Bank fraud. If God commanded it and the people followed it one would think it would prosper. It failed because it was a shell game. A con game. Joseph and some fellow leaders made money off it and the followers got screwed. An honest man would pay back every penny rather than try to declare bankruptcy and hide his assets. In the banking fiasco Joseph Smith was nothing more than a typical con man running a pyramid scheme to benefit him and a few buddies.

Not so. Joseph Smith was no business man that is for sure. And he also lost money. I think that when he was murdered, he had 'two cents' in his pocket.

[_Pokatator]

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.

Mr. Joseph Smith avatar Why Me....... I really don't think you can be convinced of anything. You walk two paths, Mormon and Catholic, maybe others. Shades and the Clerk have both given you great arguments that, in my view, are very valid and you go back to your pat answers. And that is your choice and right to do so, but you seem so Polyanna, all's well in zionish. I don't think it does any good to make comments to your posts because your responses are so predictable and uninventive.

You are well come to be a Catholic and worship JoeSmith if you like. I couldn't and can't do two masters that are so opposite of each other. You have nothing but great feelings for a religion with a book (Book of Mormon) that calls your other beliefs a whore and The Great and Abominable Church and that seems OK with you.

As far me going to Mass, yes I have been to mass. In fact the very first time I went to mass was the first Christmas after I had left the church. I was divorced and living alone and a co-worker asked me if I would like to go with her family. I did. And at that time I thought it was one of the most beautiful and religious things I had ever done. To me it topped anything the Mormons had done for Christ and Christmas in my 35 year lifetime. They actually told the story of Christ's birth directly from the Bible what novel approach from what the Mormons did all my life. The Mormons might as well worship Santa Claus on Christmas in comparison. I later attended other masses out of curiosity and found a great contrast between and Mormonism. The Catholics as the very least worship Jesus, it is all about him and not how the members are paying, praying and obeying. It wasn't ever about 2 year supplies, wearing a tie, or tatooes, or little factories. The contrast to me was vast and that is why I can't understand a Catholic with a Joseph Smith avatar.