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