Formal Mormon Theology

[MG 2.0]

depends on the criteria.

If it's a merit, then the best you can say for Joseph Smith is that he was a profoundly successful bullshitter. It's not that any one idea was great or even good, but his ability to come up with outrageous ideas off the cuff and keep engagement up under fast-moving circumstances isn't matched by many others.

If it's truth, then Joseph Smith was a prophet if and only if God the father called him to be a prophet. It doesn't matter if anything he did is impressive, that's a bonus.

If its influence, then he might be a prophet because he led an upstart religion that ended up a worldwide faith with a ton of money. That's why we would call any other historical person a prophet. If the religion reaches a certain subjective level of significance, we regard the founder as a prophet.

Unfortunately for Chapel Mormons, the only criteria that matters is truth, and since God did not call Joseph Smith to be a prophet, he's not a prophet.

Why do you feel so strongly that if a member of the church looks at truth being "the only thing that matters"...in the end... that this is somehow inferior or not worthy of respect? And in addition, if a member of the church is seeking "what is true, what is lovely, and what is of good report"...and at the same time NOT unaware of the controversies revolving around God, religion, science, philosophy, etc., are you saying that the fact that this member is prioritizing 'spiritual truth' somehow handicaps their ability to see and/or understand that above ALL else "God did not call Joseph Smith to be a prophet" (your words).

Are you saying that THIS is the great truth that supersedes everything else?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. This is quite a position to take without incontrovertible evidence that God did NOT call Joseph Smith as a prophet.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

depends on the criteria.

If it's a merit, then the best you can say for Joseph Smith is that he was a profoundly successful bullshitter. It's not that any one idea was great or even good, but his ability to come up with outrageous ideas off the cuff and keep engagement up under fast-moving circumstances isn't matched by many others.

If it's truth, then Joseph Smith was a prophet if and only if God the father called him to be a prophet. It doesn't matter if anything he did is impressive, that's a bonus.

If its influence, then he might be a prophet because he led an upstart religion that ended up a worldwide faith with a ton of money. That's why we would call any other historical person a prophet. If the religion reaches a certain subjective level of significance, we regard the founder as a prophet.

Unfortunately for Chapel Mormons, the only criteria that matters is truth, and since God did not call Joseph Smith to be a prophet, he's not a prophet.

Why do you feel so strongly that if a member of the church looks at truth being "the only thing that matters"...in the end... that this is somehow inferior or not worthy of respect? And in addition, if a member of the church is seeking "what is true, what is lovely, and what is of good report"...and at the same time NOT unaware of the controversies revolving around God, religion, science, philosophy, etc., are you saying that the fact that this member is prioritizing 'spiritual truth' somehow handicaps their ability to see and/or understand that above ALL else "God did not call Joseph Smith to be a prophet" (your words).

Are you saying that THIS is the great truth that supersedes everything else?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. This is quite a position to take without incontrovertible evidence that God did NOT call Joseph Smith as a prophet.

Regards,
MG

Presumably you can provide specific evidence that God did call Joseph Smith as a Prophet?

[MG 2.0]

Why do you feel so strongly that if a member of the church looks at truth being "the only thing that matters"...in the end... that this is somehow inferior or not worthy of respect? And in addition, if a member of the church is seeking "what is true, what is lovely, and what is of good report"...and at the same time NOT unaware of the controversies revolving around God, religion, science, philosophy, etc., are you saying that the fact that this member is prioritizing 'spiritual truth' somehow handicaps their ability to see and/or understand that above ALL else "God did not call Joseph Smith to be a prophet" (your words).

Are you saying that THIS is the great truth that supersedes everything else?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. This is quite a position to take without incontrovertible evidence that God did NOT call Joseph Smith as a prophet.

Regards,
MG

Presumably you can provide specific evidence that God did call Joseph Smith as a Prophet?

Do your own research, IHQ. I'm not here to rehash the 'evidence'.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Presumably you can provide specific evidence that God did call Joseph Smith as a Prophet?

He can't. But he still expects others to "respect" his beliefs even though he presents them as factual when they are not, and as something other people are bound by, even though they are not. It's as Everybody Wang Chung says, "that's some great missionary work you're doing."

[I Have Questions]

Presumably you can provide specific evidence that God did call Joseph Smith as a Prophet?

He can't. But he still expects others to "respect" his beliefs even though he presents them as factual when they are not, and as something other people are bound by, even though they are not. It's as Everybody Wang Chung says, "that's some great missionary work you're doing."

Exactly. He demands others provide information and resources, but is unwilling to do the same. He does not practice what he preaches.

[Gadianton]

Why do you feel so strongly that if a member of the church looks at truth being "the only thing that matters"...in the end... that this is somehow inferior or not worthy of respect?

I don't know where you come up with these odd objections, MG. I never said I value one criteria over another. I'm pointing out that what "prophet" means can vary widely depending on who is using the word.

I probably agree with members of the Church on the use of the term. And so, surprise surprise, contrary to your accusation, I suppose that means I think Mormons have a "superior" use of the term.

The closest I can see myself referring to anyone as a prophet is in the context of the religion's beliefs -- "Moses was a prophet of the Israelites". I didn't mention that use in my list because that's not actually me recognizing Moses as a prophet. That's recognizing followers of Moses believe in an X and Moses fills the role of X according to those people.

The three examples I gave are all ways in which a person could recognize Moses as a prophet rather than recognize that Moses was an X according to his followers who believed in Xs. Thus, when Ego and Physic's Guy discussed the point, it seemed apparent to me their criteria was merit. Joseph was a "prophet" if he reached a certain level of enlightenment. As both believe in God but are non-denominational, it makes sense that they look for a way to recast a religious label like "prophet" meaningfully across the board of all religions. I thought it important to point out the criteria they were assuming. Merit. I also thought it important to point out that Mormons don't share that criteria. Some Mormons believe Joseph was brilliant, some believe he was a total rube in order to emphasize God worked through him. Merit is irrelevant to Mormons, it's whether or not God actually called Joseph to be a prophet.

[Ego]

The three examples I gave are all ways in which a person could recognize Moses as a prophet rather than recognize that Moses was an X according to his followers who believed in Xs. Thus, when Ego and Physic's Guy discussed the point, it seemed apparent to me their criteria was merit. Joseph was a "prophet" if he reached a certain level of enlightenment. As both believe in God but are non-denominational, it makes sense that they look for a way to recast a religious label like "prophet" meaningfully across the board of all religions. I thought it important to point out the criteria they were assuming. Merit. I also thought it important to point out that Mormons don't share that criteria. Some Mormons believe Joseph was brilliant, some believe he was a total rube in order to emphasize God worked through him. Merit is irrelevant to Mormons, it's whether or not God actually called Joseph to be a prophet.

That’s a good summary of my criteria as well as the usual criteria which contrasts with it.

[Ego]

We can recognize that Joseph Smith was wrong about anthropology, ancient languages, etc. but still appreciate that he was an extremely brilliant man, and you could say that he was even inspired, but rather than with direct words that are 100% historical and from God, with a general spirit of myth making and esoteric profundity.

I like this general idea, but I’m concerned that it may be used in a bait-and-switch fallacy: when we want to defend Smith’s right to the title of “prophet”, we lower the standard of inspiration required, to the point where most fantasy fiction authors are going to count as prophets; then, when we’ve gotten Smith safely accepted as a prophet in this modest sense, and the heat is off, we quietly let some of the old “mouthpiece of God” idea slip back into our definition of “prophet”, and continue to revere Joseph Smith way more than, say, Orson Scott Card, because Smith was a Prophet.

A valid point about where it becomes a problem, I think the fact that Mr Smith was intentionally trying to found a religion is an important distinction though. In his writing of fiction Mr Smith was not unusual, in western esotericism Cornelius Agrippa for example falsely attributed some of his own writings to the prophet Hermes Trismegistus. Unlike the great thinkers of the past though who we can recognize used such pseudonyms and push past it in favor of still reading what they had to say for the sake of historical or philosophical curiosity, Mr Smith’s religion finds itself in the unusual position of being scrutinized under powerful modern scholarship and media distribution capable of exposing the fictitious nature of it while still having an active membership who hold to dogmatically to the idea that Mr Smith is not the author. I think the better way would be to honor Mr Smith as the founder of religious movement and as a great thinker and sure call that a prophet but that would also mean I consider Hermes a prophet among others.

[MG 2.0]

The closest I can see myself referring to anyone as a prophet is in the context of the religion's beliefs -- "Moses was a prophet of the Israelites". I didn't mention that use in my list because that's not actually me recognizing Moses as a prophet. That's recognizing followers of Moses believe in an X and Moses fills the role of X according to those people.

That makes sense. Obviously that same thing holds true today in regards to Joseph Smith. Otherwise we'd have a lot more Mormons.

Merit is irrelevant to Mormons, it's whether or not God actually called Joseph to be a prophet.

One thing I've always found interesting is that Joseph Smith wasn't considered to be a prophet because of "merit" in the worldly sense. Degrees, education, stellar moral example, ability to be the 'spokesman' for the church, etc.

Most people, believers or not, would agree that in the case of Joseph Smith...he was one of the 'weak things of the world'. Interestingly, however, he was magnified many times over because of the faith and obedience that he exercised as he moved forward believing he was doing the will of the Lord.

He went from farm boy to a prophet who led a movement that resulted in a church that makes some pretty dang explosive truth claims.

It's amazing, to say the least.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

He went from farm boy to a prophet who led a movement that resulted in a church that makes some pretty dang explosive truth claims.

It's amazing, to say the least.

He actually went from farm boy to conman and then to full blown sex addict/fraud.

It truly is amazing to say the least.