Reasons people stopped attending church

[I Have Questions]

MG, just wondering:

1. What was your prompting question?

2. Do you agree with his boast?

Great questions.

[MG 2.0]

MG, just wondering:

1. What was your prompting question?

2. Do you agree with his boast?

Great questions.

I went back on this one and couldn't find the original inquiry.

The Context of Joseph Smith’s “Boast”
Joseph Smith delivered this sermon in Nauvoo, Illinois on May 26, 1844, amid widespread turmoil, opposition, and accusations from both internal dissenters and external critics. He was under enormous pressure, and his leadership was being questioned. By referencing 2 Corinthians 11, Smith was deliberately echoing the Apostle Paul’s rhetorical style, who also used irony and hyperbole to confront his detractors.

Paul's Influence
In 2 Corinthians 11, Paul ironically “boasts” about his sufferings and sacrifices to defend his ministry, essentially saying, “If my opponents boast, so can I. Here’s why my ministry is legitimate.” Joseph adopted a similar approach: he was not literally claiming spiritual supremacy over Jesus, but rather highlighting—vehemently and perhaps with a touch of humor or irony—his unusual success in keeping his movement together despite intense adversity.

Analyzing the Statement
Joseph Smith’s words:

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. ... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. ... The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet…”

Intended Meaning
Irony and Defense: Smith’s remarks were intended as a rhetorical defense, not as a literal declaration of being greater than Jesus or the early apostles.

Historical Context: He was defending his leadership against claims that his movement was fracturing, and emphasizing the relative unity of his followers compared to the New Testament pattern of apostasy and internal conflict.

Tone
The sermon’s tone is marked by irony, hyperbole, and rhetorical flourish—much like Paul’s letters.

He was not seriously claiming superiority over Jesus; rather, he was using bold language as a rebuttal to critics.

How Latter-day Saints and Historians Interpret This
Latter-day Saints
Most LDS teachers interpret Smith's “boast” as a defensive rhetorical device, not blasphemy or arrogance.

They emphasize that Joseph Smith looked to Christ as the Son of God and ultimate Redeemer.

Historians
Scholars see this sermon as an example of Smith’s charismatic, combative style, especially under duress.

The statement is best understood in its historical and rhetorical context—not as a literal theological claim.

Sources
Joseph Smith Papers, 26 May 1844 Sermon (Willard Richards Report)

2 Corinthians 11 (Bible reference)

LDS Church History Topics: Joseph Smith’s Last Sermons

In summary:
Joseph Smith’s so-called “boast” was a deliberate use of Pauline irony and rhetorical defense, not a serious claim of outshining Jesus. Understanding the context and style makes it clear he was addressing critics in a moment of high tension, not making a theological statement of superiority.
Perplexity A.I.

This additional information along with what was already posted ought to give an indication that there might be more than one way to look at Joseph Smith's 'boast quote'.

What do I think? Well, I wasn't there when he made it. Whatever I would say could very well be built on insufficient information. That's why I've supplied additional 'food for thought' rather than relying solely on anti-Mormon propaganda.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

MG, thanks for giving credit to the A.I. that supplies your apologetic responses.

Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. Either way, his A.I. responses are mostly nonsensical.

[I Have Questions]

MG, thanks for giving credit to the A.I. that supplies your apologetic responses.

Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. Either way, his A.I. responses are mostly nonsensical.

It’s the practice of a lazy person. I’m beginning to think that MG’ly is losing cognitive ability and has A.I. fill in the gaps of his ability. It’s quite a sad spectacle when you think of it that way.

[MG 2.0]

Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. Either way, his A.I. responses are mostly nonsensical.

It’s the practice of a lazy person. I’m beginning to think that MG’ly is losing cognitive ability and has A.I. fill in the gaps of his ability. It’s quite a sad spectacle when you think of it that way.

Don't worry your pretty little head, IHQ. As I've mentioned a number of times, A.I. is a wonderful tool that can save a LOT of time. That's awesome!

You can "think of it" however you want. The fact is, on a board like this where things are coming left and right at moderate to high frequency, A.I. is a godsend.

Take it how you will. As it is, you rarely...if ever...actually respond to the content I provide. It's basically ignored.

That says something to the validity of what is being presented. I've noticed that there is typically little or no engagement with the actual content of the A.I. resources/information.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. Either way, his A.I. responses are mostly nonsensical.

It’s the practice of a lazy person.

Umm...no.

A resourceful person.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. Either way, his A.I. responses are mostly nonsensical.

It’s the practice of a lazy person. I’m beginning to think that MG’ly is losing cognitive ability and has A.I. fill in the gaps of his ability. It’s quite a sad spectacle when you think of it that way.

I learned today that mg also edits what he coaxes his A.I. to say. Along with leaving out the prompts he uses, and his claims that what is produced are facts, I would argue it's lazy and also intellectually dishonest.

[MG 2.0]

It’s the practice of a lazy person. I’m beginning to think that MG’ly is losing cognitive ability and has A.I. fill in the gaps of his ability. It’s quite a sad spectacle when you think of it that way.

I learned today that mg also edits what he coaxes his A.I. to say. Along with leaving out the prompts he uses, and his claims that what is produced are facts, I would argue it's lazy and also intellectually dishonest.

You would.

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

I learned today that mg also edits what he coaxes his A.I. to say. Along with leaving out the prompts he uses, and his claims that what is produced are facts, I would argue it's lazy and also intellectually dishonest.

You would.

Regards,
MG

That's because it is.

[Philo Sofee]

I learned today that mg also edits what he coaxes his A.I. to say. Along with leaving out the prompts he uses, and his claims that what is produced are facts, I would argue it's lazy and also intellectually dishonest.

You would.

Regards,
MG

But........I for one would think it is vital to INCLUDE the questions exactly as you ask of A.I. so we can see the built in biases you are pre-loading into the A.I. answers. It absolutely makes a difference. I also use A.I. to research topics and I KNOW how you ask and what you include and exclude absolutely makes a difference. So, are you going to start putting in more context with your A.I. research? You ought to, otherwise, I for one, simply cannot accept your conclusions in any manner of subjects you are discussing.