Joseph Smith's Personal Claim to Fame.

[_Darth J]

Joseph said:

Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil.

How do we know that Joseph Smith could tell the difference between them?

[_brade]

How do we know that Joseph Smith could tell the difference between them?

Pffff, easy. If we pray about it, with sincerity, believing that God will tell us the truth, then God will tell us whether Joseph Smith could tell the difference.

[_mentalgymnast]

Oh, and as far as LDS myth goes regarding the succession crisis of 1844 and the dogma that the line of authority in church presidents is self-evident, here are some places to start:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... SHOW=14314

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... 556&REC=16

Darth, I've read quite extensively regarding what is referred to as the succession crisis after the death of Joseph Smith, including having read the first article you linked to. I read it years ago. I have been an avid Dialogue and Sunstone reader for decades. For me, I have come to the conclusion, again after having researched/read from many different sources, that if the Brighamite faction of the early LDS church doesn't have the sanction of God to perform His work and act in His name, then the others aren't worth a second look. So I'm just not interested in debating that strand of investigation at this time on this thread.

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

Oh, and as far as LDS myth goes regarding the succession crisis of 1844 and the dogma that the line of authority in church presidents is self-evident, here are some places to start:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... SHOW=14314

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... 556&REC=16

Darth, I've read quite extensively regarding what is referred to as the succession crisis after the death of Joseph Smith, including having read the first article you linked to. I read it years ago. I have been an avid Dialogue and Sunstone reader for decades. For me, I have come to the conclusion, again after having researched/read from many different sources, that if the Brighamite faction of the early LDS church doesn't have the sanction of God to perform His work and act in His name, then the others aren't worth a second look. So I'm just not interested in debating that strand of investigation at this time on this thread.

Regards,
MG

So all of this is really about the LDS Church, not Joseph Smith.

There is more than one Brighamite faction of Mormonism, by the way.

[_mentalgymnast]

How do we know that Joseph Smith could tell the difference between them?

If we can concur that learning language is a process which occurs over time, I think that we may get closer to agreement in looking at revelation in a similar manner. Language development is not a closed loop process. It is a process that involves interactive/experiential activity. Is is unreasonable to think that revelation is something that is learned in a similar way and is a progressive process by which the learner becomes fluent?

Again, by asking this question that you did above, it shows that it is possible to ask without having spent a reasonable amount of time and effort to look at possibilities. Real possibilities. That's what I was referring to earlier when I said that it is unfortunate that many people give way and give in to "immature doubt and easy dissent without having paid the price to receive the gift of faith."

Part of paying the price involves asking hard questions, but then looking for REAL answers. The question asked above simply demonstrates the fact that since you haven't figured out how revelation works and how to discern whether or not it's in the head or from without, etc., that you have to throw that right back at Joseph Smith and look at his progressive revelatory understanding/experience as being directly similar to yours.

Apples and oranges.

Off to church.

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

How do we know that Joseph Smith could tell the difference between them?

If we can concur that learning language is a process which occurs over time, I think that we may get closer to agreement in looking at revelation in a similar manner. Language development is not a closed loop process. It is a process that involves interactive/experiential activity. Is is unreasonable to think that revelation is something that is learned in a similar way and is a progressive process by which the learner becomes fluent?

Again, by asking this question, it shows that it is possible to ask without having spent a reasonable amount of time and effort to look at possibilities. Real possibilities. That's what I was referring to earlier when I said that it is unfortunate that many people give way and give in to "immature doubt and easy dissent without having paid the price to receive the gift of faith."

Part of paying the price involves asking hard questions, but then looking for REAL answers. The question asked above simply demonstrates the fact that since you haven't figured out how revelation works and how to discern whether or not it's in the head or from without, etc., that you have to throw that right back at Joseph Smith and look at his progressive revelatory understanding/experience as being directly similar to yours.

Apples and oranges.

Off to church.

Regards,
MG

That's right. I am completely new and inexperienced as to the LDS concepts of how revelation is supposed to work.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

MG:
Smith's prophecy basically is deconstructed thusesly.

Smith's name would be known for good and evil in all the nations of the earth.

Since there are always admirers and detractors of a person, no matter what, this part of the prophecy is not really saying anything. Lady Gaga, Julius Caesar, and Barak Obama are all known for good and evil. This is the case with all people. Some people like them, some don't. Thus, it is best to set aside this part of the prophecy (cancelling it out, to use an algebra term).

Smith's name would be known in all the nations of the earth.

Well, making the a prediction or receiving a prophecy of fame would be a great thing indeed! Except the results are self selecting. Pretend we have two would-be prophets proclaiming that they would one day be world famous. One becomes world famous and we have heard of him, and we know his prophecy came true! The other failed, and died in a funny way. We never hear of him, or his failed prophecy. To rephrase, we will only ever hear about the successful prophesies/prophets, we will never ever hear of the failure. Successful prophecies of this nature are self selecting. Thus, we can now cancel this part of the prophesy as well.

Smith's name.

Since this is a semantically null phrase, it can also be cancelled out.

We are now left with: 0

You're welcome, MG!

[_why me]

MG:
Smith's prophecy basically is deconstructed thusesly.

Smith's name would be known for good and evil in all the nations of the earth.

Since there are always admirers and detractors of a person, no matter what, this part of the prophecy is not really saying anything. Lady Gaga, Julius Caesar, and Barak Obama are all known for good and evil.

You're welcome, MG!

Joseph Smith was no Julius Caesar. However when we look at the time frame that he made this prediction, we will see that there was absolutely no reason for him to make such a prediction since he basically traveled in a very limited geographical area. He needed to have faith that Mormonism would eventually become a world wide faith because of his first vision and the restoration. And so, if he did experience his vision, then it would make sense that god would create a framework to have his church become world wide and Joseph Smith's name be had for good and for evil just as it was in his small geographical area.

[_sock puppet]

Joseph Smith was no Julius Caesar.

Ya think?

[_Darth J]

Joseph Smith was no Julius Caesar. However when we look at the time frame that he made this prediction, we will see that there was absolutely no reason for him to make such a prediction since he basically traveled in a very limited geographical area. He needed to have faith that Mormonism would eventually become a world wide faith because of his first vision and the restoration. And so, if he did experience his vision, then it would make sense that god would create a framework to have his church become world wide and Joseph Smith's name be had for good and for evil just as it was in his small geographical area.

Why Me:

I am certainly glad that you have found evidence that Joseph Smith recorded Moroni's prediction when Joseph was 17 years old, rather than a ghost writer putting those words in Joseph Smith's mouth years later, when there were already Mormon missionaries in Europe.

Will you please share that evidence with the rest of us?