Why Joseph Smith?

[sansfoy]

Gah, I had Roger written down! Then I went to edit something and erased it and came back with a famous composer instead...I'll be in the corner if you need me.

LOL. I was sure it was a result of fast typing and a combination of seeing "John Cotton" and having the composer permanently seeded in your mind. It's an internet board, not a scholarly paper. Feel free to take off the dunce cap and leave your corner whenever you feel sufficiently chastened.

[sansfoy]

This thread is a waste. The fact is that JS was chosen. THere is not need to discuss all of hese "possiblities".

I only deal with what is, not what could have been.

Feel free to read another thread, then.

And really, there's no need to discuss any of the subjects we discuss on the board. I thought people came here because they found religious debate and speculation interesting. But maybe I'm just projecting.

[thesometimesaint]

Lunatics don't do what JS did.

[sansfoy]

Lunatics don't do what JS did.

What?

[Deborah]

No, Joseph wasn't one of the fine, earnest and righteous men of the time.

Because that wasn't the time, otherwise someone else would have been chosen, or Joseph Smith would have been born in that time.

[sansfoy]

Because that wasn't the time, otherwise someone else would have been chosen, or Joseph Smith would have been born in that time.

That's my question. Why didn't it happen earlier, either with Joseph Smith being born at that time or one of the other good men living at the time? There must have been a good reason for people to live another 100-200 years without the gospel.

[Deborah]

There must have been a good reason for people to live another 100-200 years without the gospel.

I believe that has been explained, but I'm not sure what your point is given people lived thousands of years without the gospel and that we have work for the dead which provides gospel benefits to all who have lived.

[volgadon]

That's my question. Why didn't it happen earlier, either with Joseph Smith being born at that time or one of the other good men living at the time? There must have been a good reason for people to live another 100-200 years without the gospel.

Why stop at 100-200 years? Also, why are you being occi-centric?

[sansfoy]

Why stop at 100-200 years? Also, why are you being occi-centric?

If you take the givens of the LDS Church, then the Restoration couldn't have happened much before that. The Catholic Church still had an iron-grip on European populations and there weren't Christian settlers in North America yet. Given that the gold plates were found in Upstate New York, it wasn't likely to have been Nestorians restoring the gospel.

But even so, within the parameters of LDS theology, I don't see why it took so long to get the ball rolling.

[cinepro]

That's my question. Why didn't it happen earlier, either with Joseph Smith being born at that time or one of the other good men living at the time? There must have been a good reason for people to live another 100-200 years without the gospel.

LDS leaders have taught that the United States of America and the religious freedoms found herein is a key ingredient to the restoration of the Gospel. So the short answer to your question is that it couldn't have happened before 1776 (or 1787).

Also, you have to remember that the Book of Mormon was also a key component of the restoration, and the gold plates were buried in the drumlin around 400 AD. So there may have been several different potential restorers in the country at the time, and God might have just gone with the one who lived near the plates and who had been preparing for the unusual translation process to come (BYOSS?)

As for people "living without the gospel", billions of people to this day "live without the gospel", so God must have come to peace on the subject long ago.

Ultimately, you'll probably find that most LDS view Joseph as being singularly chosen and prepared and the only option. There may be other LDS that might acknowledge the possibility of there being other options if Joseph had exercised his agency and opted out of calling, but it's not a possibility we typically discuss. And in light of how history played out, it doesn't bear much to discuss it beyond the interesting hypotheticals.

[Ahab]

LDS leaders have taught that the United States of America and the religious freedoms found herein is a key ingredient to the restoration of the Gospel. So the short answer to your question is that it couldn't have happened before 1776 (or 1787).

That's the point I was getting ready to bring out. America wasn't an independent nation with all of the rights and freedoms we now have until 1776, or later, and even when the Lord started restoring the Church in 1820 the members of the Church still had a lot of problems that he was willing to put up with.

1776: signing of the U.S. of A's Declaration of Independence

1787: signing of the U.S. of A's Constitution

1805: birth of the mortal Joseph Smith on this Earth

1820-1830: appearances by God the Father and his Son and Moroni to begin Joseph's divine education

1830: Church restored, complete with authority to declare the gospel and begin administering the ordinances.

Apparently, God was in no big hurry, otherwise he could have at least did what he did in 1820 instead of waiting until 1830 when Joseph was really ready

[cinepro]

1805: birth of the mortal Joseph Smith on this Earth

If you had just said "Joseph Smith's birth", we probably would have understood what you meant.

[hagoth7]

For Lehi's prophecy (and his forefather Joseph's prophecy) to be fulfilled, the Restoration had to be through a Joseph, son of Joseph, of the right lineage.

So a Roger, Mark, Thomas or Jorge wouldn't cut it - regardless of how righteous they might have been.

[hagoth7]

For example, why not my ancestor John Cotton?

Because he wasn't a Joseph, son of a Joseph.

[Ahab]

For Lehi's prophecy (and his forefather Joseph's prophecy) to be fulfilled, the Restoration had to be through a Joseph, son of Joseph, of the right lineage.

So a Roger, Mark, Thomas or Jorge wouldn't cut it - regardless of how righteous they might have been.

If a Mark or Roger or Thomas or Jorge had been chosen by God to do that job, God could have simply told Joseph (son of Jacob/Israel) that it was going to be someone by that name, instead of someone who was also named Joseph, like him.

[Ahab]

If you had just said "Joseph Smith's birth", we probably would have understood what you meant.

I was trying to put a plug in for the idea that Joseph's mortal birth wasn't the beginning of his life, though.

We all have 2 births, and some of us even have 3, so to just say "born" doesn't quite get at the point that I was trying to make.

[hagoth7]

If a Mark or Roger or Thomas or Jorge had been chosen by God to do that job, God could have simply told Joseph (son of Jacob/Israel) that it was going to be someone by that name, instead of someone who was also named Joseph, like him.

Of course.

Simply answering the OP.

[pcarthew]

Why was Joseph Smith the prophet of the Restoration? Surely there were other possibilities. The Reformation had been building for centuries, and Joseph Smith's work was built on a foundation of other men, many of whom were sincere and learned, with followers who would have considered earnestly any claim to be a prophet.

For example, why not my ancestor John Cotton?

It comes down to this, God does not care what you think or me or anyone else when kit comes to His leaders here upon the earth. He chooses, "ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you", for the arrogant mind that is often a big fat bitter pill to swallow.

Why was Joseph the prophet of this dispensation of the fulness of times? Because he was foreordained to that calling, and then exercised his agency in an appropriate way where God was able to enact that foreordination!

Joseph is the prophet of this dispensation. Very uncomplicated isn't it!

[sansfoy]

It comes down to this, God does not care what you think or me or anyone else when kit comes to His leaders here upon the earth. He chooses, "ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you", for the arrogant mind that is often a big fat bitter pill to swallow.

Why was Joseph the prophet of this dispensation of the fulness of times? Because he was foreordained to that calling, and then exercised his agency in an appropriate way where God was able to enact that foreordination!

Joseph is the prophet of this dispensation. Very uncomplicated isn't it!

You do know the human mind is primed to ask "why" and that we're even encouraged to do so. The scriptures are full of men far greater than me asking hard questions: Moses, the Brother of Jared, Nephi, Thomas the Apostle, Joseph Smith. And how long did Brigham Young study the church before joining?

Are you going to rebuke me for asking questions? Accuse me of an arrogant mind?

Maybe I deserve it. I'm a "show me the wound" kind of man.

[Ahab]

You do know the human mind is primed to ask "why" and that we're even encouraged to do so. The scriptures are full of men far greater than me asking hard questions: Moses, the Brother of Jared, Nephi, Thomas the Apostle, Joseph Smith. And how long did Brigham Young study the church before joining?

Are you going to rebuke me for asking questions? Accuse me of an arrogant mind?

Maybe I deserve it. I'm a "show me the wound" kind of man.

You've been given the correct answer now, though, so what are you going to do at this point?

In other words, how long are you going to keep looking for the answer to your question when the answer has already been given to you?

[Sevenbak]

I was trying to put a plug in for the idea that Joseph's mortal birth wasn't the beginning of his life, though.

We all have 2 births, and some of us even have 3, so to just say "born" doesn't quite get at the point that I was trying to make.

To further that thought... since dispensational prophets have also been archangels, it stands to reason it's a pattern here too. Only two of that we know of.

Adam (Michael)

Noah (Gabriel)

From D&C 128:21, we learn 3. Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. The Book of Enoch, in addition to those 3, name 4 more; Uriel, Raguel, Zerachiel and Remiel.

Anyone want to try to play fill in the blanks with the rest?

Enoch?

Abraham?

Moses?

Joseph?

I know, I know, this is not a doctrinal thing, just my own speculation, Sevenbak 3:7 ... but it fits a pattern.

[Gohan]

To further that thought... since dispensational prophets have also been archangels, it stands to reason it's a pattern here too. Only two of that we know of.

Adam (Michael)

Noah (Gabriel)

From D&C 128:21, we learn 3. Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. The Book of Enoch, in addition to those 3, name 4 more; Uriel, Raguel, Zerachiel and Remiel.

Anyone want to try to play fill in the blanks with the rest?

Enoch?

Abraham?

Moses?

Joseph?

I know, I know, this is not a doctrinal thing, just my own speculation, Sevenbak 3:7 ... but it fits a pattern.

We discussed this during a District Study a few months ago. In Mormon Doctrine, Elder McConkie speculates about the possibility of Abraham being the archangel Raphael and some of the reasoning is kind of interesting. But that's all I know on the subject.

[Ahab]

To further that thought... since dispensational prophets have also been archangels, it stands to reason it's a pattern here too. Only two of that we know of.

Adam (Michael)

Noah (Gabriel)

From D&C 128:21, we learn 3. Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. The Book of Enoch, in addition to those 3, name 4 more; Uriel, Raguel, Zerachiel and Remiel.

Anyone want to try to play fill in the blanks with the rest?

Enoch?

Abraham?

Moses?

Joseph?

I know, I know, this is not a doctrinal thing, just my own speculation, Sevenbak 3:7 ... but it fits a pattern.

Thanks for sparking the idea that Joseph's former name could have been one of those other names, but I really don't know which one of those names was/is one of his other names, although I accept as fact, now, that one of them was/is.

[Sevenbak]

Thanks for sparking the idea that Joseph's former name could have been one of those other names, but I really don't know which one of those names was/is one of his other names, although I accept as fact, now, that one of them was/is.

If you're implying he lived in mortality as a prophet prior to this dispensation, I couldn't disagree more.

I think there is a strong possibility he served/serves in an archangel capacity, as other dispensational prophets have done, but this was his only chance at mortality.

IF we knew what Joseph meant by this statement, then we wouldn't have to guess about such mysteries:

"Would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am! would to God I could tell you what I know! but you would call it blasphemy, and there are men on this stand who would want to take my life."

-Joseph Smith; Life of Heber C. Kimball, p.33

[Ahab]

If you're implying he lived in mortality as a prophet prior to this dispensation, I couldn't disagree more.

No, I meant that just as Michael lived in heaven before he came here and was called by another name, Adam, so too did Joseph live in heaven before he came to this Earth, even though I don't know (or remember) which name he went by back then.

I think there is a strong possibility he served/serves in an archangel capacity, as other dispensational prophets have done, but this was his only chance at mortality.

Right, just as Michael and Gabriel had only one chance at mortality, too, during which they were each known by another name.

IF we knew what Joseph meant by this statement, then we wouldn't have to guess about such mysteries:

"Would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am! would to God I could tell you what I know! but you would call it blasphemy, and there are men on this stand who would want to take my life."

-Joseph Smith; Life of Heber C. Kimball, p.33

Heh, I know what he meant, now. I just don't know which name he would have used to tell us who he was before he was known as Joseph.