Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The "Founding Prophet" of Mormonism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The "Founding Prophet" of Mormonism

    Smith is idealized as "the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

    That's the tag beneath the Mormon propaganda film Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration available on youtube.

    Uploaded on Mar 28, 2011

    A motion picture about the life and legacy of Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who translated The Book of Mormon. To learn more about Joseph Smith’s history visit: http://josephsmith.net/



    Where do we find a "founding prophet" of Judaism?
    Where do we find a "founding prophet" of Christianity?

    Could it be any more clear that - as much as the Mormons would love to dispute it - Mormonism is the product of one man who claimed, himself, to be a prophet? And the fact that this one man had such a murky past, and continued, even as "prophet", to be liar, con man, womanizer.....

    Christianity is centered on the sinless Son of God. You cannot separate Christianity from Christ.

    Mormonism is centered on the sinful son of a mortal man. You cannot separate Mormonism from Smith.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

  • #2
    The more I see of Mormonism's history, the more I see it as a modern version of Islam, but with less violence.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
      The more I see of Mormonism's history, the more I see it as a modern version of Islam, but with less violence.
      Less violence, yes, but there is no shortage of violence in Mormonism.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Less violence, yes, but there is no shortage of violence in Mormonism.
        Well, I didn't say there was a shortage.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
          Well, I didn't say there was a shortage.
          But they're a whole lot better (or so they think) at historical revisionism than Islam.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            The more I see of Mormonism's history, the more I see it as a modern version of Islam, but with less violence.
            I guess I could add (the bolded part)....

            Where do we find a "founding prophet" of Judaism?
            Where do we find a "founding prophet" of Christianity?
            Where do we find a "founding prophet" of Islam?

            Oh, wait... Islam and Mormonism have THAT in common, too!
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Joseph Smith crowned himself "prophet" the same way he crowned himself Grand Poobah of the Masons, or Lt. General of the Militia, or the President of the FleeceMyOwnPeople Bank, or any number of other positions into which he self promoted.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #8
                Seems to me most people would say that Moses is the founding prophet of Judaism and Jesus is the founding prophet of Christianity, wouldn't they?
                Last edited by Adrift; 01-08-2016, 10:48 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Seems to me most people would say that Moses is the founding prophet of Judaism and Jesus is the founding prophet of Christianity, wouldn't they?
                  Sure, you could make that argument, except that Moses didn't self declare or self appoint.
                  You could argue that Jesus did, but He had John the Baptist as a forerunner, and came as God in the flesh, not just "another prophet".

                  Joseph Smith simply appointed himself.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Sure, you could make that argument, except that Moses didn't self declare or self appoint.
                    I don't think Joseph Smith or Muhammed claimed to be self-appointed, so I don't think you can make that distinction here.
                    You could argue that Jesus did, but He had John the Baptist as a forerunner, and came as God in the flesh, not just "another prophet".

                    Joseph Smith simply appointed himself.
                    From a skeptical point of view, one could claim that John and Jesus colluded, since they were relatives.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Sure, you could make that argument, except that Moses didn't self declare or self appoint.

                      You could argue that Jesus did, but He had John the Baptist as a forerunner, and came as God in the flesh, not just "another prophet".
                      I suppose so. There is Deuteronomy 18:15-22 that pretty much explains that Moses was appointed as a prophet to his people, and Jesus refers to himself as a prophet in Mark 6:4. Of course I agree that Jesus was a prophet, but also much more.

                      Joseph Smith simply appointed himself.
                      Ok. I guess I was just a bit confused about your questions in the OP. Moses and Jesus are often considered founding prophets, but if your point was actually that they were legitimately divinely appointed, while Smith was not, then of course I agree.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        I don't think Joseph Smith or Muhammed claimed to be self-appointed, so I don't think you can make that distinction here.
                        I don't know enough about Muhammad's origins to argue that, but I do know that Smith's origins fit into a very clear pattern of him always managing to make himself the center of attention - as with the Grand Poobah of the Masons, the President of the Bank, the Lt. General of the militia, etc. He was a con man from his youth, and continued the very same con into his "prophet" role, even using the same "peep stone" that he used to swindle people out of money.

                        From a skeptical point of view, one could claim that John and Jesus colluded, since they were relatives.
                        Sure, as long as, from a skeptical point of view, they also discounted the prophecies, the virgin birth, the walking on water, the healing the lame, raising the dead, etc....

                        Smith, on the other hand, left death, destruction and mayhem in his wake.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          I suppose so. There is Deuteronomy 18:15-22 that pretty much explains that Moses was appointed as a prophet to his people, and Jesus refers to himself as a prophet in Mark 6:4. Of course I agree that Jesus was a prophet, but also much more.
                          Christ was also an Apostle.

                          Ok. I guess I was just a bit confused about your questions in the OP. Moses and Jesus are often considered founding prophets, but if your point was actually that they were legitimately divinely appointed, while Smith was not, then of course I agree.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment

                          widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                          Working...
                          X