They Shoot Mormons, Don't They? Religious Bigotry, alive and well today

I love how critics of Joseph Smith slam him on crystal gazing but fail to ignore why when brought him to court they failed to convicted him.

Have you looked at the evidentiary discussion at the pre-trial hearing on Joseph Smith? The prosecutor wanted to prove that Smith couldn’t see anything with his seer stone, so he took a book, opened it randomly, covered it with a blanket and placed it 25 feet away from him. Asked Smith to read the two pages word for word. Joseph Smith proceeded to read the two pages word for word. When the Judge picked up the book and saw what Smith had done, he dismissed the pre-trial immediately and let Smith go.

How come the critics never try to look at the details of his claims but continue with same ole same ole?

And they picked some very effective gimmicks -- sex, money and power -- you get the sex right now, soon as you sign up, all the women you want -- you get the money as you go, as your faithfulness and obedience gets established -- and you get the power at the end, when you are rewarded for a lifetime of unquestioning obedience and faithfulness, doing, thinking and saying exactly what church leadership tells you and nothing else.

You've hit this on the head--with part of the "power" formula being eternal power promised by the "prophet" himself. For some reason, LDS put D&C 137 up to vote to be "sustained" as "Scripture" (why couldn't the 1976 LDS "prophet" just call it such?). What is telling is what is not included.

Look for example at History of the Church, 2:187. We see there Smith's original apostles. Smith claimed to envision all 12 of these original apostles in celestial kingdom--the highest kingdom.

The "excluded portions" of D&C 137 shows that Smith was already unhappy w/his apostles and in fact, rebuked them: "...fatigued...tattered...eyes cast downward...the Saviour looked upon them and wept." Despite this, Smith was trying to get them to get their act together and decided to lure them with the promise of eternal prowess:

"I finally saw the Twelve in the celestial kingdom of God."

What happened to these dozen: 7 were soon ex-communicated or apostatized from the LDS Church (Luke S. Johnson + John F. Boynton, 1837; Orson Hyde, Thomas B. Marsh, Lyman Johnson, Wm E. McClellin, all in 1838; and William Smith, 1845. Now how could these be in the celestial kingdom if those who "breaketh this [priesthood/oath] covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor int he world to come?" (D&C 84:40-41)

McLellin was an apostate, pure and simple even tho Smith envisioned him working miracles in the south and preaching there [none of which happened]. While it's true that some of these apostles returned to the church, they were not exactly the highest candidates for "godhood"/highest degree of glory upon returning.

Moses erred and was still a prophet,
Jonah erred and was still a prophet,
There were others I’m sure but their names escape me at the moment.
So prophets are just common men with a special “duty”?
Well that would explain why prophets of old were often ignored, misunderstood, shunned, and spurned especially by those who knew him/her as a child. See Matt 13:7 and Mark 6:4.
So if there is a prophet for today he would get ridiculed like those of old?

From all I heard on this thread Mr. Smith was either a charlatan or a prophet. No wiggle room here. With evidence pointing at both possibilities I guess it’s up to the seeker of truth and his/her God.

Labels used: Prophet, “common men”, duty, charlatan, “seeker of truth”, God.
Until we understand what a label means to another we cannot understand another’s perspective. - Truth-Miner

Every dispensation has a prophet tat the head, Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Joseph Smith. When Moses was trying to do all the governing himself, it was a mess, then he was counseled by his father to put men into groups and place men over them, Moses prayed about it, and organized the people into groups, thus it has been ever since. The head of this dispensation is Joseph Smith. (according to the LDS church)[DU]

First of all, this assumption overrides what the writer of Hebrews says in Heb. 1:1-2: "God...in times PAST" spoke "by the prophets [plural] "Hath in THESE LAST DAYS spoken unto us by His Son..."

Jesus Christ is our Living Prophet, the Full Revelation of God.

Secondly, it is outlandish that LDS prophets presume that God only and always speaks through them. For example, at the 2/26/80 BYU Devotional Assembly presented 14 "Fundamentals" in following The Prophets. Of course, #1 was: "The Prophet is the Only Man who speaks for God in everything."

How arrogant. How parochial. How limited its view of how God speaks.

LDS often "get on the case" for Christians for not recognizing the "need" for fresh, living revelation today. They think Christians "shut up" heaven.

In fact, it's LDS who "shut up" heaven, as if the revelation of God poured forth through one mere cloud that hangs over Salt Lake City 24/7. (But somehow this rain, if it really ever falls, hardly ever gets placed into the D&C scripture reservoir]

I said: FC, in your studies of Mormonism have you ever encountered one shred of evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God?”

You responded: No, I can sincerely tell you that having made a lifetime hobby of examining odd religions, you beat even the Scientologists for the “not even close” award.

So you are deaf to testimony, deaf to scripture, deaf to witnesses, Deaf to the amazing things he has accomplished, yet you shut your eyes and claim it is all a trick.

How can you be an objective observer?

How can anyone accept your posts as well thought out?

I cut out all the “Comparisons with other religious leaders” because it is not relevant.

Same question applies.

Yes, it does, having studied a bit of Buddhism I can see how it descended from knowledge of God, Most protestant churches have much truth in them, the Catholics have a lot to offer, but to you Mormonism has nothing? No proofs, no wisdom, no truth?

And I can certainly accept that a certain amount of slippage will occur when well meaning people try to find a path to God.

“A certain amount of slippage”, you mean loss of information? So would you admit that different amounts of slippage will occur for different people? If yes, then you are stating that I am at 100% slippage, and you are at 0? This is a situation that simply cannot be.

But Mormons really take the cake. Joseph Smith has so many leading indicators towards being an utter fraud that I’d rather roll the dice with Mary Baker Eddy or L. Ron.

What was the phrase? Yeah, Yeah, yeah I have heard this all before. I have been told that people would eat their hats, and do other amazing, embarrassing and or dangerous things if Joseph Smith were actually a prophet. People also called Jesus a charlatan, and for many of the same reason " And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?".

Many of the “non believers” (is that better than Antis?) try to “Prove” the gospel either right or wrong, you do not want Faith to be involved at all, you want, you want, you want. When you cannot prove it true, you say you have proved it false. You begin to look for anything that can prove the falsity of what you cannot prove true. There will always be evidence to prove what you have already decided is true, Always.

All you can prove in a matter of faith is that you do not believe.

That’s how far I’ve been convinced by this thread in opposition, this nailed the lid shut.

I am so glad you’ve kept an open mind until now (LOL) if you had an open mind you would have at least listed testimony as the only evidence for Joseph Smith.

Don’t you find it at least strange that a boy of 14 in upstate NY, started a movement that drew many millions of people, Drained “un-drainable swamps, Designed and built cities, drew architectural plans, wrote books, inspired millions to better themselves preached of Christ with a doctrine that is still debated today and all this from a boy who had, if I remember correctly, a fourth grade education? No?

What have you done with your life?

Don’t you find it at least strange that a boy of 14 in upstate NY, started a movement that drew many millions of people, Drained “un-drainable swamps, Designed and built cities, drew architectural plans, wrote books, inspired millions to better themselves preached of Christ with a doctrine that is still debated today and all this from a boy who had, if I remember correctly, a fourth grade education? No?

Muhammad wasn't very literate. Look at its size today.

JoeSmith wasn't a "boy of 14" when he started the movement. Another myth you've bought into.

As far as "inspiring millions," if I'd plagiarized enough Scripture from the book of Isaiah, the NT, even quoting OT prophets a few hundreds year before they wrote what they wrote--like JS did in one instance--then circulate wide enough & long enough, its truth contained therein is meant to "inspire."

Give me the greatest-tasting cookie recipe in the history of man, let me "borrow it" for widespread circulation, and I could make a lot of "dough." (But what if I was to tell folks who died 30 yrs after eating plenty of those cookies that the reason they were dying is that they were slowing being poisoned to death because of a few "extra" ingredients I added...Oh sure, after tasting one they were "inspired" to eat more...but only to their own demise)

Secondly, it is outlandish that LDS prophets presume that God only and always speaks through them. For example, at the 2/26/80 BYU Devotional Assembly presented 14 "Fundamentals" in following The Prophets. Of course, #1 was: "The Prophet is the Only Man who speaks for God in everything."

How arrogant. How parochial. How limited its view of how God speaks.

LDS often "get on the case" for Christians for not recognizing the "need" for fresh, living revelation today. They think Christians "shut up" heaven.

Some times I just have to wonder if people are “not getting it” on purpose. You are perfectly entitled to receive revelation from God. You always have been. However, when God has a message for “everyone” he will do so through his prophet.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

I believe he was referring to Proverbs:

Ps. 82: 6 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

This is my best guess, since Christ did not say which scripture he was referring to. All I know is that he made it very clear. People today would stone us for saying the same thing. Some things never change I suppose.

I find that verse very troubling. A couple of possibilities come to mind.

5) Jesus wasn’t who he said he was.
6) Somebody put words in his mouth that he didn’t say, and if they did, then they probably did it more than once and to others as well.

That verse is a huge RED flag that shouldn’t be ignored or glossed over. jmo

Muhammad wasn't very literate. Look at its size today.

The Moslem religion, converts by the edge of the sword and anyone who leaves it is under a death sentence and they have lots of kids. Mormonism is not even remotely like Moslems, it shows your lack of objectivity that you make this comparison. JoeSmith wasn't a "boy of 14" when he started the movement. Another myth you've bought into.

And you know his age, how?

As far as "inspiring millions," if I'd plagiarized enough Scripture from the book of Isaiah, the NT, even quoting OT prophets a few hundreds year before they wrote what they wrote--like JS did in one instance--then circulate wide enough & long enough, its truth contained therein is meant to "inspire."

So if it’s inspiring, what’s your problem? How many religious documents “borrow” from scripture? Most? What if you feel inspired? Can God not work through a 14 year old boy? Is anything impossible for God?

Give me the greatest-tasting cookie recipe in the history of man, let me "borrow it" for widespread circulation, and I could make a lot of "dough." (But what if I was to tell folks who died 30 yrs after eating plenty of those cookies that the reason they were dying is that they were slowing being poisoned to death because of a few "extra" ingredients I added...Oh sure, after tasting one they were "inspired" to eat more...but only to their own demise)

Why would you poison your cookies? You are limiting your profits (not prophets, but profits). You need not poison your Cookies if you have a great recipe, but you might put something in them to make them addictive, that way you could make more money.

Your entire cookie story crumbles when you do not come at it from the premise that Joseph Smith is a charlatan.

Why would a Charlatan go to his death rather than admit he was “Just Funnin”? Please answer that as a question that goes to the credibility of your statement that there is no evidence for Joseph Smith being a prophet. Why would he hold on until they killed him?

Some times I just have to wonder if people are “not getting it” on purpose. You are perfectly entitled to receive revelation from God. You always have been. However, when God has a message for “everyone” he will do so through his prophet.

Sometimes I wonder why folks have to make plain words not resemble what they mean.

When Benson said "The Prophet is the Only Man who speaks for God," he didn't leave it at that. He added another two words at the end of that statement, words which you seem to ignore: "The Prophet is the Only Man who speaks for God in everything."

What you just said is the "non-controversial" angle because, Delf, who doesn't believe that God can't speak to them in prayer (for example)? [I mean, in you saying what you did...that God personally speaks to folks...I hope that doesn't put you way far out on some eccentric theological limb...:)]

But IF you said, as did Benson, that the ONLY one who can prophesy truth resides in SLC, not only does that contradict what Paul told the Corinthians when he was talking about the gifts of the spirit, but it also means that LDS think that the only "cloud of prophesy" is permanently parked over SLC.

So, let's hear it straight from your mouth: Yes, you believe that all folks can hear "personal revelation" from God, but go on say it: You also believe any and all prophesies can only come from Zion...No, that's not right, Zion is in Independence, MO...strike that...can only come from SLC, the new spiritual Zion that's meant to replace the real geographical one.

And you know his age, how?

Joseph Smith was born December 23, 1805, he didn't "start" the Church until 1827 at age 22 and didn't incorporate the Church or publish the BOM until he was 25 in 1830. Are you disputing these facts? It is your cookie that crumbles when we clearly point to a grown man charlatan instead of a 14 year old youth. Joseph Smith himself didn't write about his youthful "vision" until many years after it occured. Do you have any proof it occured when he was 14?

The BoM was written in In June 1828 - Smith allowed Martin Harris to take 116 pages of the manuscript to Palmyra to show Harris' wife (remember). At this time Joseph Smith was 24 years old and not an unwitting 14 year old innocent youth, but a married man.

1) Psalms is not and never was part of the law.
2) Jesus should have known that.
3) How could he make such an egregious mistake? As a prophet how could he say something and have it not be so?
4) Do you know how they were instructed to deal with prophets that said things that were not so? Oh yeah, I see that you do.

The quote is also in Isaiah, see my earlier post 2695.

We also know that the “Law” contained the book of Enoch among others we are missing. The book of Enoch is now available online and it speaks of men being the children of God. The book of Enoch was being quoted every time Jesus said “Son of man” in that that was specifically used in a messianic prophecy, Jesus and all the gospels quoted form the Book of Enoch.

I do however find it interesting that you immediately jump to the conclusion that Either Jesus was a fraud, or people were altering the scriptures we have now on purpose.

... with part of the "power" formula being eternal power promised by the "prophet" himself.

You get an instant pay-out just for signing up. But with a bunch of pregnant wives on your hands, you're going to stay put, aren't you? You can't exactly travel around America with these women in tow, as an obvious polygamist. You also have to work pretty hard to support them all. This glues you into the fold pretty securely, assures Smith, Young, etal. of an army of laborers for their various enterprises and even more worker ants as those (thoroughly indoctrinated) offspring come of age and start producing even more worker ants.

But reality soons sets in, as you begin to feel the downside of the deal. That's when the second gimmick kicks in. Money. You're never out of work. The church sees to that by always having something for you to do to help build its wealth. So for the first time in your life, you always have everything you need. That makes it even harder to take off. You look back at where you came from and see only the failures, the loneliness, the risk and uncertainty. You've made the classic mistake of trading freedom for security. But you'll stand pat because money talks and thinking for yourself makes your head hurt anyway.

But as time goes by, you begin to chaff under the tyrannical hand of your glorious leader. You begin to envy his power and status and resent being under his thumb. So he promises you power beyond reckoning in the life to come, emphasizing that your life of obedience and virtual servitude is "only for a time." And you buy that too. You go for it because he's already delivered on his first two promises. You go for it because he's made examples of those who defy his authority. You go for it because everybody around you is doing that and how could they all be wrong?

This is how Smith and Young held onto their power and their empire.

In contrast to the Earp-Holliday-Masterson racketeering schemes, which merely aimed at controlling liquor, prostitution and gambling in one town at a time, Smith and Young thought big. I have to give them credit for that.

JoeSmith wasn't a "boy of 14" when he started the movement. Another myth you've bought into. And you know his age, how?

I kind of thought you might answer that way, but only because you've had your Mormon lenses on too long.

When you read all the LDS P.R. stuff about JS, it's age 14 this and age 14 that.

But Joe was born in 1805. At age 23 (1828) he joined the Methodist church. Whatever supposedly happened to him almost 9 years before wasn't solid enough for him to effect his church membership, even tho later he said he was told to "join none of them" well before he "joined one of them."

Even if you believe that two unnamed personages appeared to him during his mid-teens, at the very least JoeSmith was in apostasy through 1828. There was no was no LDS movement pre-1829 (and some would even say, pre-1830).

So, all I've done is point out that this man began a movement when he was 24-25 years old (even if its roots go a little deeper).

To emphasize this point: Take all of FastCoyote's "tales" about his divinity. Let's say FC is 14 now. Let's say that in a decade, FastCoyote binds up all of his sageness into a single volume called "The Wily Wiles of FastCoyote," and the disciples he seems slow of convincing on FR today mushroom in the year 2017.

Now you and I can argue over the true "root" date--was it 2007 or was it 2017?..but if FastCoyote had never shared any of his sageness from 2007 to 2016, I really don't think you would have much ground to stand on in opposing my contention that his movement began in 2017...and that any other date is pure myth. [Especially if no official & original Vision from Coyote's visit by his Coyote personages even emerges til he turned 30+ in the year 2023]

Why would a Charlatan go to his death rather than admit he was “Just Funnin”?

Well, you raise a good question, 'cause it's the same question raised about why the early disciples would be martyred.

But there's a big difference in their "martyrdom."

First of all, Joe was trying all he could do behind the scenes (via others) to be moved. He wasn't exactly a "volunteer" for such martyrdom. Hence, that's why he brandished a weapon in self-defense when his cell was attacked. Joe killed & wounded some of his attackers before being killed...understandable, mind you, but not exactly befitting his mythic martyr role if he was so "voluntary" in giving his life. If anything, he was doing all he could to avoid such martyrdom.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.