Why Joseph Smith?

[Sevenbak]

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.

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

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.

Cool, I think we're on the same page.

I'm very much interested in what you know and your sources. PM me if you can.

[Ahab]

Cool, I think we're on the same page.

I'm very much interested in what you know and your sources. PM me if you can.

Heh, it would take my life time for me to tell you that, my friend.

Everyone I hear from is one of my sources, and God is the one I rely on to confirm the truth to me.

[Sevenbak]

Heh, it would take my life time for me to tell you that, my friend.

Everyone I hear from is one of my sources, and God is the one I rely on to confirm the truth to me.

I find that a very wise answer.

line upon line...

[sansfoy]

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?

I believe you are sincere when you say that and I have to admit a certain envy of the knowers of the world. That, however, is not my path.

I can more easily answer your second question: as long as it takes.

[Ahab]

I believe you are sincere when you say that and I have to admit a certain envy of the knowers of the world. That, however, is not my path.

If you keep saying "it's not my path" you'll be shooting yourself in the foot, or maybe even both feet.

Try accepting the fact that it could be your path, as long as you do what you need to do to make it your path.

I can more easily answer your second question: as long as it takes.

As long as it takes.... to what?

Believe it?... you could believe it right now, if you wanted to.

To find out that what you have heard is true?... who would have to be the one to tell you, before you would know it was true?

God, our Father in heaven, is the one who I rely on, and I recommend that everyone else rely on him, too.

And btw, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost come in at a really close second, even though they are all in agreement, but I suppose that considering the fact that it is usually Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost who give me messages from our Father in heaven, I generally consider them all to be one.

[zerinus]

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?

The problem I see with that question is that you could ask it about almost anyone else who accomplished something special at a specific period of time. Can you tell me why that question would be any less applicable to Columbus's discovery of America, Newton'a discovery of the laws of motion, Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon, Noah's building of the Ark, Dr. Christiaan Barnard's first heart transplant . . ., and a million other people of renown who accomplished something extraordinary or unique at the specific period of time in the history of the world? Why them, at that particular time, you could ask, and not someone else? And if it had not been Joseph Smith, but had been John Cotton instead, and someone had asked you the same question relative to him, what would your answer have been?

[Ahab]

The problem I see with that question is that you could ask it about almost anyone else who accomplished something special at a specific period of time. Can you tell me why that question would be any less applicable to Columbus's discovery of America, Newton'a discovery of the laws of motion, Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon, Noah's building of the Ark, Dr. Christiaan Barnard's first heart transplant . . ., and a million other people of renown who accomplished something extraordinary or unique at the specific period of time in the history of the world? Why them, at that particular time, you could ask, and not someone else? And if it had not been Joseph Smith, but had been John Cotton instead, and someone had asked you the same question relative to him, what would your answer have been?

I said basically the same thing in one of my posts answering his question, but that last sentence of yours wasn't something I thought of at the time and it was a really nice touch from you. Well done, and worth another rep point.

[hagoth7]

I disagree. There were all manner or religious groups and movements in the colonies, especially from Pennsylvania northward. Would Mormons of around 1700 have stood out remarkably among the Anabaptists, Quakers, Lutherans, German Reformed, Baptists, Moravians, Mennonites, Presbyterians, etc.? By stand out, I mean would they have attracted any more hatred and persecution than they did in the mid-19th Century? I don't think so.

In fact, if Mormonism had started in either Rhode Island or Pennsylvania it might have had a longer period to establish itself, given those colonies' rather notorious reputations.

Yet, prophecy foretold the 19th century.

Similar in some ways to the prophesy of WHO he would be in 2 Nephi 3...

...there a multiple timelines in scripture of precisely WHEN he (and the church God restored through him) would arise from obscurity.

Could God have chosen and foretold a different period of time? Sure.

But He didn't.

[hagoth7]

The nature of your question, combined with the meaning of your screen name, suggests you're from an Adventist background.

Is that accurate?

I ask because a William Foy is viewed in some Adventist circles as someone who could have been the prophet of the Adventist movement.

[sansfoy]

The nature of your question, combined with the meaning of your screen name, suggests you're from an Adventist background.

Is that accurate?

I ask because a William Foy is viewed in some Adventist circles as someone who could have been the prophet of the Adventist movement.

No, I'm not from an Adventist background and I had never heard of William Foy.

[Deborah]

The first part of this talk addresses why certain people are chosen at certain times.

Michael Ballam education week

[tana]

Well I've so far avoided history of the church and dogma threads on here as a matter of principle....my own. But this discussion reminded me of a particular issue I've thought about for many years now....

What does the BoM have to do with the LDS church? and the restoration?

Is there any good reason for the church to be restored, after many centuries removed, at the exact same time as the BoM, unless it were to be used as a tool, or...I hate to say, gimmick?

Because really, the BoM doesn't belong to the LDS religion any more that the bible belongs to the Catholics, or the Baptists. Doesn't the BoM belong to all humanity? Even if it turns out that the BoM is what it claims, that doesn't make the LDS church true then by default.

Isn't the BoM just a history book of another group of people... Does it add anything necessary for the salvation of man that the bible doesn't already have? Meaning, wouldn't it have been much simpler....and with a lot less credibility issues, that if god wanted humans to have this record, to just simply have it discovered and translated in more traditional methods? A farmer plows it up, the scientists translate it. It gets put into the Smithsonian, and that's that.

I've heard it said that the reason this wouldn't work, the reason god took the plates up is because if he left them here, it would be too much evidence and people wouldn't need faith in the unseen. But isn't that exactly what is going on with the witnesses and the BoM itself? God allowed evidence that the church must be true. Isn't that what the missionaries have always done....presented the BoM to potential converts with the declaration of; look at this supernatural record brought forth by a mere youth who couldn't possible have written it himself? From my understanding that is what was done and is why the church grew so rapidly.

Another possible way for god to restore the gospel would have been to simply give J.S. or another worthy person all the keys and knowledge, put it down in the D.&C., and have people read and pray as to it's authenticity.....

[JRM]

Perhaps Hyrum Smith when he says Paul ordained Deacon Linus, he was the one mentioned here; Scholars are pretty much in agreement that this Linus in 2 Timothy does not fit Pope Linus (Bishop of Rome) because if he was I would assume more weight would have been given to him (he isn't even mentioned first) There is some confusion also about Pope Linus was he Martyred or not? Was he buried next to Peter or not? This confusion could implicate there are two Linuses. and through time the stories of the two merged. However it does correspond with Brother Smiths remarks. We know from this scripture that Paul while in Rome knew someone named Linus. It implies that Linus was a disciple, a follower of Christ and could match the Deacon spoke of by Hyrum Smith in his talk.

This quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia; so there is some confusion. But this supports Brother Smith when he declares Deacon Linus was Martyred. I can see where there is some collaboration of a second Linus and he lived and was killed about the time Brother Smith mentions.

CE also talking about Pope Linus, states So then, who was this Linus? I guess although the evidence is limited you stated that this is undocumented non sense but as little as it is, it is some evidence. Hope that crow taste good.

Can you provide a few sources of this scholarly agreement for me to read? Thanks in advance.

The crow will taste good when the speculative elements are proven correct. They were stated as factual, but hey, that was just a little white lie, right?

[Ahab]

Well I've so far avoided history of the church and dogma threads on here as a matter of principle....my own. But this discussion reminded me of a particular issue I've thought about for many years now....

What does the BoM have to do with the LDS church? and the restoration?

Well, for one thing, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that Jesus Christ taught and appeared to more people than only those on the Eastern hemisphere circa 0 A.D, and that's something most people weren't aware of until the writings of the Book of Mormon came to light in the beginning of the Restoration movement.

The Book of Mormon also adds a lot more insight on certain issues that are presented in the Holy Bible, including how to know which church of all churches is Christ's.

Is there any good reason for the church to be restored, after many centuries removed, at the exact same time as the BoM, unless it were to be used as a tool, or...I hate to say, gimmick?

Tool would be a much better word, IMO. Gimmick has some negative connotations.

Because really, the BoM doesn't belong to the LDS religion any more that the bible belongs to the Catholics, or the Baptists.

Heh, nope, you're wrong about that. Both the Book of Mormon and the Holy Bible were written by members and leaders of our Lord's church, rather than the apostate groups that sprang out of the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Doesn't the BoM belong to all humanity?

Heh, nope. It was written to all of humanity, but it "belongs" to the people who wrote it, and all of them are in our Lord's church, or in other words, the LDS church.

... and neither any "Catholic" or any "Baptist" wrote any part of what was written by the hand of any original author of it.

Even if it turns out that the BoM is what it claims, that doesn't make the LDS church true then by default.

Yes it does, and the fact that you don't think it does tells me that you didn't really know what the LDS church is when you wrote that.

I hope my words of correction will sink in.

Isn't the BoM just a history book of another group of people...

It is that, but it isn't "just" (as in only) that.

Does it add anything necessary for the salvation of man that the bible doesn't already have?

Consider everything the Bible has which is necessary for salvation, and then multiply that times 2, which is what the Book of Mormon adds by being an additional witness to the Truth that is necessary for salvation.

Meaning, wouldn't it have been much simpler....and with a lot less credibility issues, that if god wanted humans to have this record, to just simply have it discovered and translated in more traditional methods? A farmer plows it up, the scientists translate it. It gets put into the Smithsonian, and that's that.

God uses the principle of faith to test those who profess to have faith in him. You seem to be suggesting some alternative method, and I like God's way better.

I've heard it said that the reason this wouldn't work, the reason god took the plates up is because if he left them here, it would be too much evidence and people wouldn't need faith in the unseen.

Heh, yep. That's pretty much what I was saying.

But isn't that exactly what is going on with the witnesses and the BoM itself?

Are you saying there is too much evidence, even now, without the plates here to look at? That's an interesting point. What would you propose to increase our level of faith, even more?

God allowed evidence that the church must be true. Isn't that what the missionaries have always done....presented the BoM to potential converts with the declaration of; look at this supernatural record brought forth by a mere youth who couldn't possible have written it himself? From my understanding that is what was done and is why the church grew so rapidly.

Hmm. Yes, I suppose you are right. God does give us some evidence, as opposed to no evidence, so I guess he wants us to have some, instead of none of it.

Another possible way for god to restore the gospel would have been to simply give J.S. or another worthy person all the keys and knowledge, put it down in the D.&C., and have people read and pray as to it's authenticity.....

He did that, too, as well as giving us the Book of Mormon, and the Bible, and the Pearl of Great Price, and many other writings that came to us from Joseph.

It appears to me that God's goal is to give us just enough writings to begin to develop our faith in him, and then from there add more through personal revelation.

[Alf O'Mega]

The nature of your question, combined with the meaning of your screen name, suggests you're from an Adventist background.

Is that accurate?

I ask because a William Foy is viewed in some Adventist circles as someone who could have been the prophet of the Adventist movement.

I am sorry to announce that my friend Sansfoy was slain by a belligerent assailant wearing a red cross[e]. Anyone with information that might be helpful to the investigation should contact one of his brothers, Sansloy or Sansjoy.

[Anijen]

Can you provide a few sources of this scholarly agreement for me to read? Thanks in advance.

The crow will taste good when the speculative elements are proven correct. They were stated as factual, but hey, that was just a little white lie, right?

I already quoted my source (the Catholic Encyclopedia) and the author of that quote is a very well respected Catholic scholar, it is not just a biased Mormon siding with Hyrum Smith. It is some evidence, not empirical mind you but some, which could support Hyrum's remarks. You asked for any evidence but now you say only when the "speculative elements are proven correct" that's called moving the goal post.