What's new
By:

Question About Joseph Smith

Howard said:
Colton, I don't mean to sound rude, but I can't ever imagine having God and Jesus appearing to you, and then calling it a minor detail of the account gets mixed up. I mean, that seems like a pretty major detail.
Click to expand...

1832 version - Jesus Christ
1835 version - a host of angels
1835 version (in same month as above) - host of angels, pillar of fire, angelic being
1838 version (official) - God the Father and Jesus Christ

All religions and denominations have things they have to reconcile. I trouble at times with Jonah, even the ark, timelines... It's about faith not proof.

I pray to not offend but only to encourage a Christain walk that is centered on the simplicity of the love of Christ.
No walls between us as brothers in Him.
 
There are so many holes in every organized religious doctrine that I've never been able to reconcile. While my spiritual beliefs are present, my search for truth can never align with organized religion due to the massive inconsistencies, it's inability to adapt to modernity, and the simple fact that it was made by man.

I would be interested to hear how some of you reconcile with the cognitive dissonance required to believe these stories, yet use logic in every other aspect of life. Why do you give organized religion a "pass"? I'm genuinely curious and those who would like to share I would greatly appreciate it.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
I'd like you to expound on this and your exact thoughts here. For me personally, and I say this with all due respect, this statement seems not so thought out.
Click to expand...

I would be happy to, but only after you explain how you reconcile it seeming "not so well thought out" to you.
 
JAZZGASM said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system

Here is an overview. Google Joseph Smith and glass looking trial to find exerpts from the trial in 1826. JS also talks about the trial in the PoGP. The BOM was translated in 1829 using the same method Smith was convicted for in 1826 (using a hat with a magic device inside). Be was charged with the same crime again but he left for Ohio. Fascinating stuff.
Click to expand...
Wait....... You could get convicted of using magic hats back then? Lolololololololol at the old timey laws and courts.
 
fishonjazz said:
Wait....... You could get convicted of using magic hats back then? Lolololololololol at the old timey laws and courts.
Click to expand...

You could get convicted of conning people out of money. Most people were very uneducated and superstitious back then. Treasure finding cons were very common back then.
 
I haven't read this thread yet but I just want to say I regret starting it at all.

I've avoided Jazzfanz for the last couple days so I don't have to look at it.
 
Gameface said:
I haven't read this thread yet but I just want to say I regret starting it at all.

I've avoided Jazzfanz for the last couple days so I don't have to look at it.
Click to expand...

Probably better than a porn bomb though...
 
Dr. Jones said:
Correctum??

Can't believe ****** is censored and ******* is not. Lol
Click to expand...

WhoOAAOOAO! Oh the possibilities!

******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* *******
 
Carbon13 said:
WhoOAAOOAO! Oh the possibilities!

******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* *******
Click to expand...

Weird. It's like I just clicked here - https://jazzfanz.com/memberlist.php?order=desc&sort=posts&pp=30
 
JAZZGASM said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system

Here is an overview. Google Joseph Smith and glass looking trial to find exerpts from the trial in 1826. JS also talks about the trial in the PoGP. The BOM was translated in 1829 using the same method Smith was convicted for in 1826 (using a hat with a magic device inside). Be was charged with the same crime again but he left for Ohio. Fascinating stuff.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reference. I've read a bit about the 1826 trial in the past few days (the Wikipedia article, a few pro-LDS sources, a few anti-LDS sources, and a possibly impartial source). My conclusion is that the 1826 event wasn't actually a trial, rather it was a hearing of some sort. (Possibly a pre-trial hearing, where things didn't end up proceeding to a trial.) And, since it wasn't a trial, even though the judge apparently ruled against Joseph Smith, Smith wasn't actually convicted of anything. Evidence that he wasn't convicted includes the facts that he didn't have to pay any fines, any court costs, or do any jail time.

Anyway, what had surprised me the most about your assertion was the claim that Smith had been convicted of fraud or something similar. To my knowledge he wasn't ever convicted of any crime, and that's still my opinion after reading about the 1826 event. That's quite possibly not what you yourself were most interested in--it seems like the thing that you found most interesting was the evidence that Smith had used a "seer stone" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stone_(Latter_Day_Saints)) prior to translating the Book of Mormon. That part doesn't surprise me as much... if he used a seer stone for translating much of the Book of Mormon, and quite possibly for receiving some of the early revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants (some discussion of that here https://rationalfaiths.com/joseph-smiths-use-of-seer-stones-in-the-revealing-of-the-book-of-mormon/), then it seems plausible that he could have received other early revelations via a similar process.
 
Using the urim and thumim to find buried treasure?
 
Revolution 9 said:
You guys made it down to Munich ok? The heat wave was intense yesterday (and today already).
Click to expand...

Tell me about it. NO AC! I'm ready to murdilate someone. Our hotel room was 84 at 3 in the morning last night. Ugh. I actual went out to the car and sat in the AC for a half-hour to stop sweating. Lol
 
Gameface said:
So you're not familiar with the accusations of money digging?

Like I really don't know anything here, but anytime I've looked into it I've heard about the money digging.

Hard working farm boy? Yeah, I'm not talking about the version the church sells, I'm talking about what non-LDS people think and hear about Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...

My guess is he would fall right between the LDS version of JS and the version you've heard about. Like most things the truth generally lies in the middle.
 
colton said:
Yes, there are 4 or 5 different accounts that he wrote. I've read them all, and I've also read several accounts by people that related what he told them orally. They all agree in the fundamentals, but disagree on details. For example, in the canonical account (what we have in the Pearl of Great Price) he said that two personages appeared to him, God and Jesus. In some accounts he just said that God appeared to him and didn't mention Jesus. That type of thing doesn't really bother me; if I were to describe an experience that happened to me to different people and at different times I'd probably emphasize different aspects of the experience and maybe get some of the minor details mixed up.



I agree. In fact, I remember reading an interview with one of his neighbors where the lady said something like "He was such a nice, hardworking, honest boy. It's a shame that he went off the deep end." (She didn't that colloquialism but that was the sentiment.) In other words, if he had never had mentioned visions/Book of Mormon/etc., she would have described him as a nice, hardworking, honest boy.
Click to expand...

And some of the details they disagree on are pretty significant (e.g., how many personages appeared to him, which strikes me as a difficult detail to forget or on which to get muddled).

I'm curious, if you, or anyone else, sat on a jury and the lead witness for the prosecution in the case changed the details of his/her story repeatedly, even leaving the broad stokes more or less consistent, how credible would you find his witness? Would you vote to convict based on this witness' testimony (all else equal)?

This is a rather clear cut case in which believers will apply a different, laxer evidentiary standard to their own beliefs than they do to other persons' beliefs, or more generally in other realms of their lives (e.g., how they assess the credibility of someone who repeatedly changes his/her story in other contexts).

I'd bet my bottom dollar that we won't (as a general but rather consistent rule) find them going to such lengths to rationalize away and excuse other cases in which someone can't get his/her story straight in other contexts and will have difficulty finding this person credible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top