Formal Mormon Theology

[Ego]

No, this was in Texas

[huckelberry]

There have been prophets participating on this message board. In Old Testament times there were whole bands of prophets running about. Most prophets are easily forgotten. Perhaps best forgotten ,have been forgotten.

[I Have Questions]

There have been prophets participating on this message board. In Old Testament times there were whole bands of prophets running about. Most prophets are easily forgotten. Perhaps best forgotten ,have been forgotten.

Most modern Prophets are self appointed. In the SLC LDS Church it is the corporate articles of association that determine succession, and therefore who the next LDS Prophet will be.

[MG 2.0]

I mean, what came of it in the 'big picture' of things? Like, did it result in a religion that has spread across the world, albeit in pockets of acceptance/belief?

I'm wondering if there is somewhere I can go where I can see the fruits of this prophet you're referring to?

Regards,
MG

Oh, like that. Nothing came of it. He never dropped the belief but he told me that it ‘was not his time yet’ to be revealed to the world. I suppose if you want to judge him on his fruits, I did in fact speak a different language in my mission for what it’s worth
But in all seriousness, no, it was very harmful what he was doing, for everyone involved.

I think that it is important to look at the fruits that come from someone that makes a claim to speak for God. And that includes Joseph Smith.

Regards,
MG

[Physics Guy]

In a way I want to say that the harm a person causes shouldn’t affect the validity of their words ... .
Near as I can tell, Mr. Smith’s idea that people had a premortal existence wasn’t a view held by anyone since the time of Origen the theologian. So does his offenses against the dignity of women and free speech invalidate his theology? That’s the question for me.

I would say that one can discuss any body of ideas without even mentioning the person who first expressed them. Other things about that person only become relevant if one makes them relevant, by trying to draw conclusions about the ideas from facts about the person, or vice versa.

So for instance, one could debate the idea of pre-mortal existence without referring to Joseph Smith, but if one tries to argue that we should believe in pre-existence because the Prophet Joseph Smith taught it, then I think one invites responses to the effect that for an idea to have come from Joseph Smith is a reason to doubt the idea, not a reason to believe it, because Smith had an awful track record of making things up from ulterior motives. Conversely, if we are trying to say that Joseph Smith was a great guy because he gave us the concept of pre-mortal existence, then I think we have to allow a response that says, "Well, he still can't have been all that great, because he also did this and that."

None of that stops anyone from considering Smith's ideas in themselves ... except perhaps for the significant fraction of his ideas that were specifically about how much authority he had been given by God. Those ideas can't be considered independently from Smith because they were ideas about Smith himself.

[Ego]

In a way I want to say that the harm a person causes shouldn’t affect the validity of their words ... .
Near as I can tell, Mr. Smith’s idea that people had a premortal existence wasn’t a view held by anyone since the time of Origen the theologian. So does his offenses against the dignity of women and free speech invalidate his theology? That’s the question for me.

I would say that one can discuss any body of ideas without even mentioning the person who first expressed them. Other things about that person only become relevant if one makes them relevant, by trying to draw conclusions about the ideas from facts about the person, or vice versa.

So for instance, one could debate the idea of pre-mortal existence without referring to Joseph Smith, but if one tries to argue that we should believe in pre-existence because the Prophet Joseph Smith taught it, then I think one invites responses to the effect that for an idea to have come from Joseph Smith is a reason to doubt the idea, not a reason to believe it, because Smith had an awful track record of making things up from ulterior motives. Conversely, if we are trying to say that Joseph Smith was a great guy because he gave us the concept of pre-mortal existence, then I think we have to allow a response that says, "Well, he still can't have been all that great, because he also did this and that."

None of that stops anyone from considering Smith's ideas in themselves ... except perhaps for the significant fraction of his ideas that were specifically about how much authority he had been given by God. Those ideas can't be considered independently from Smith because they were ideas about Smith himself.

The idea of a prophet as a special designation is all about whether a certain person’s words should hold more epistemic weight than another person’s. I would agree that a good way to determine that is to look at their track record, and I agree his isn’t too good. Even so the most truth saying of individuals would better be described as a philosopher than a prophet seeing as those who generally claim to speak for God often hold to falsehoods as dogmatic truth rather than truly being open minded to truth.

[MG 2.0]

In a way I want to say that the harm a person causes shouldn’t affect the validity of their words ... .
Near as I can tell, Mr. Smith’s idea that people had a premortal existence wasn’t a view held by anyone since the time of Origen the theologian. So does his offenses against the dignity of women and free speech invalidate his theology? That’s the question for me.

I would say that one can discuss any body of ideas without even mentioning the person who first expressed them...
So for instance, one could debate the idea of pre-mortal existence without referring to Joseph Smith...

That's where I'm coming from as I've lived my life and explored various philosophical/religious/theological ideas. What do those ideas/concepts look like standing independent of the person that either wrote or spoke the words associated with a particular concept. For me, when it comes to the idea of having had some kind of existence before birth, I associate that with God having existed as God for eons of time. If God exists in a time/space that was before and comes after the existence of this planet, then I exist also...not only in the flesh, but in alignment with God's eternal existence. In other words, it doesn't make sense, to me, that God would be wandering around the universe (or wherever he hangs out) alone and without sentient entities keeping Him company. My thinking is that these 'friends', so to speak, would not be exclusive to carbon based mammals/humans. There is another form that we take after death...and a form that we had previously before birth.

I think there is something else coming. And it includes us. Because...God.

That's all on the presupposition that there is a creator God and He made it possible for us to have this experience. I can't see Him providing the experience and then it all goes poof. I think the same principle of eternal existence goes backwards too.

I think, but I can't be sure obviously, that I would find this way of view things very attractive with or without the doctrines brought into the modern world through Joseph Smith. But yeah, it's REALLY interesting that this is what he believed and taught the Saints.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I would say that one can discuss any body of ideas without even mentioning the person who first expressed them. Other things about that person only become relevant if one makes them relevant, by trying to draw conclusions about the ideas from facts about the person, or vice versa.

So for instance, one could debate the idea of pre-mortal existence without referring to Joseph Smith, but if one tries to argue that we should believe in pre-existence because the Prophet Joseph Smith taught it, then I think one invites responses to the effect that for an idea to have come from Joseph Smith is a reason to doubt the idea, not a reason to believe it, because Smith had an awful track record of making things up from ulterior motives. Conversely, if we are trying to say that Joseph Smith was a great guy because he gave us the concept of pre-mortal existence, then I think we have to allow a response that says, "Well, he still can't have been all that great, because he also did this and that."

None of that stops anyone from considering Smith's ideas in themselves ... except perhaps for the significant fraction of his ideas that were specifically about how much authority he had been given by God. Those ideas can't be considered independently from Smith because they were ideas about Smith himself.

The idea of a prophet as a special designation is all about whether a certain person’s words should hold more epistemic weight than another person’s. I would agree that a good way to determine that is to look at their track record, and I agree his isn’t too good.

I agree that a prophet's track record should be looked at in totality. What are the fruits, short term and long term.

Regards,
MG

[Ego]

The idea of a prophet as a special designation is all about whether a certain person’s words should hold more epistemic weight than another person’s. I would agree that a good way to determine that is to look at their track record, and I agree his isn’t too good.

I agree that a prophet's track record should be looked at in totality. What are the fruits, short term and long term.

Regards,
MG

A comprehensive overview of all fruits would be too big for here, so I’ll focus on a few related to the topic of truth which my comment originally referred to.

Joseph Smith provided in the form of the Temple a way of distributing esoteric knowledge from the Masonic lineage, it can be seen as a dishonest thing to steal from them, but at least he began a tradition that could bring these things to the members, and I am a grateful beneficiary of that tradition.

Unfortunately in his own day we also see that he was very against the Nauvoo Expositor, to the point of denying their freedom of press, this authoritarian behavior, is very much against having truth prevail. How can it prevail if intelligent people cannot express their views without fear?

This leads to another thing, BYU professors being censored, rendering them unable to express what they believe is truth for fear of losing their livelihoods. I reckon half the time their unorthodox views aren’t necessarily even problematic for a liberal Mormon, but it is for the Mormon Inquisition apparently.

That being said, in less touchy matters BYU has a good tradition of supporting the advancement of knowledge. I am impressed by BYU’s research in compliant mechanisms for example which has gained attention outside the Church simply because of its good merit, what might be termed tier 1 apologetics by Gadianton.

How much of these later effects can be attributed to Mr. Smith though? He started the Mormon movement but it was the correlation committee that has spawned the toxic anti-intellectual environment, this is something that the Community of Christ does not suffer from as far as I know which Church we must also consider to be one of his fruits. It was early students of BYU like Talmadge as well as its founder Karl Maiser that promoted its pursuit of truth, though arguably Mr. Smith’s pursuit of knowledge about languages in the School of the Prophets set the precedent for this.

I’ve tried to be fair in my assessment, giving both positives and negatives. It is my opinion that the things most directly attributable to him have been more harmful though such as the destruction of the Expositor as well as stealing from the Masons (even if I reap the benefit of that dishonesty).