Paul vs. Joseph Smith

[Haven]

The vast majority of Christians (everyone except members of the LDS, Community of Christ, and a few others) accept that Paul was a messenger of the Christian god, but say that Joseph Smith (writer of the Book of Mormon and self-proclaimed prophet) was a charlatan. This is remarkable because, from what we know from historical records, there are so many similarities between the two people:

+ Both claimed to see ethereal visions of Jesus, but neither met him during his lifetime
+ Both wrote works later considered scripture by their followers (Paul with seven New Testament books, Smith with the BoM and related Mormon writings)
+ Both had histories of violence (Paul claimed to turn over Christians for execution, JS went to prison for a gun battle)
+ Both were avowed misogynists and male supremacists
+ Both identified as Christians, but had different theologies from most Christians of their times (Paul had very different views from Jesus and James (an early Christian leader, and Smith's movement was [is] different than mainstream Christianity)

So, with these similarities, what reason (other than presupposition--"I already believe X") is there to reject (or accept) one as an apostle/prophet, but not the other?

Debate question: Why accept Paul but not Joseph Smith? Why not reject both as false apostles/prophets or accept both as messengers of god? Is there any evidence that supports one's message but discounts the other's?

[Psalm139]

Joseph Smith's writings don't align with the OT prophecies at all.

WEll now, I think they do. Mind you, I'm a Mormon so of course I would; if I didn't think so, I'd be something else.

the problem here is that, as far as I can tell, a lot of this stuff is 'reverse engineered." That is, first you figure out whether someone is a prophet and THEN you go looking to see how they 'align with' the OT or the NT or whatever, or at least, with one's interpretation of them. It's fun, actually.

The only way to know who is a false prophet or not is if you're one of God's saints who possesses His knowledge. We go by what is written and spoken, not whether or not one looks like a prophet or not.

[Haven]

The only way to know who is a false prophet or not is if you're one of God's saints who possesses His knowledge. We go by what is written and spoken, not whether or not one looks like a prophet or not.

How is this not circular reasoning? How do you know if you're one of "God's saints?" How do you know you're not mistaken or deceived?

[Regens Küchl]

Hi OP Haven

First: J S never went to prison for participating in a gun battle. The only time he was verdicted in a court was for fraudulent treasure hunting.

But in your false information I see a big problem because it proves that it is easy to smuggle outright lies into J S biography and getting away with that for while.

Second: If J S saw a vision of Jesus or not depends on which of the contradicting up to half a dozen versions of his first vision you want to say to believe.

Third: Not only acts but also his own letters (be everything to all men) seem to speak for paul being a big charlatan also. Oh yes he even imitates J S in giving different accounts of his first(damascus)vision.

Fourth: Both may have had mysoginistic streaks, but so had most men of their mysoginistic times.
A prophet who wants people to listen has to say things they want to hear.

Fifth: Paul could be mythical and never have existed. Just saying.

Sixth: The reason Paul is accepted by all christians is that his sect vanquished the christianity of the apostles and from pauline christianity sprang catholicism which canoniced the bible canon including Pauls story an theology.

This canon is out of sillyness sacrosanct even to all noncatholic christian sects.

So how could they reject Paul? He is in the bible.

J S is in the bible too. But only in the J S bible of which the Community of Christ owns the manuscript and therefore many LDS wouldnt touch it with a flagpole.

[dianaiad]

Joseph Smith's writings don't align with the OT prophecies at all.

WEll now, I think they do. Mind you, I'm a Mormon so of course I would; if I didn't think so, I'd be something else.

the problem here is that, as far as I can tell, a lot of this stuff is 'reverse engineered." That is, first you figure out whether someone is a prophet and THEN you go looking to see how they 'align with' the OT or the NT or whatever, or at least, with one's interpretation of them. It's fun, actually.

The only way to know who is a false prophet or not is if you're one of God's saints who possesses His knowledge. We go by what is written and spoken, not whether or not one looks like a prophet or not.

...er....

Wait.

what?

"what is written or spoken?"

Written or spoken where? By whom?

All we know of Paul is his writings...or writings about him. All we know of Jesus, for that matter, are writings about Him.

So we have a prospective prophet in front of us who speaks and writes. Are you saying that this is sufficient? If he claims the status verbally, or writes stuff down, then he's a prophet?

Now, being a Mormon myself, I of course believe that there are post NT prophets, who actually write scripture, but even I think there has to be more than that involved.

[Zzyzx]

.

The only way to know who is a false prophet or not is if you're one of God's saints who possesses His knowledge.

Are we fortunate to have among us some who possess God's knowledge?

How can we know that those who claim to be "saints" are anything more than self-identified "prophets" who are false prophets?

We go by what is written and spoken, not whether or not one looks like a prophet or not.

Those who have God's knowledge should have outstanding ability to present ideas flawlessly. Right?

If someone trying to present or defend God stories and claims does not fare well in debate, might that be indication that they lack the claimed knowledge from God?

[historia]

Both were avowed misogynists and male supremacists

Why, exactly, do you think the man who said "there is neither male nor female in Christ" was a misogynist?

Paul did self-aggrandize: he falsely claimed to have studied under Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin.

Let's be fair here. Paul never claimed this himself.

[Psalm139]

The only way to know who is a false prophet or not is if you're one of God's saints who possesses His knowledge. We go by what is written and spoken, not whether or not one looks like a prophet or not.

How is this not circular reasoning? How do you know if you're one of "God's saints?" How do you know you're not mistaken or deceived?

Those of us who possess the Truth do not need to use terms like, "circular reasoning". Only the confused use terms like this.

Why would I be mistaken about my true created existence? It's you who doesn't know your true self.

[Psalm139]

Joseph Smith's writings don't align with the OT prophecies at all.

WEll now, I think they do. Mind you, I'm a Mormon so of course I would; if I didn't think so, I'd be something else.

the problem here is that, as far as I can tell, a lot of this stuff is 'reverse engineered." That is, first you figure out whether someone is a prophet and THEN you go looking to see how they 'align with' the OT or the NT or whatever, or at least, with one's interpretation of them. It's fun, actually.

The only way to know who is a false prophet or not is if you're one of God's saints who possesses His knowledge. We go by what is written and spoken, not whether or not one looks like a prophet or not.

...er....

Wait.

what?

"what is written or spoken?"

Written or spoken where? By whom?

All we know of Paul is his writings...or writings about him. All we know of Jesus, for that matter, are writings about Him.

So we have a prospective prophet in front of us who speaks and writes. Are you saying that this is sufficient? If he claims the status verbally, or writes stuff down, then he's a prophet?

Now, being a Mormon myself, I of course believe that there are post NT prophets, who actually write scripture, but even I think there has to be more than that involved.

: :

We saints are called saints by God, not prophets. Prophets were used by God to write prophecies about us saints coming to speak the Law of God and leave tidbits of information for us saints to read once we testify to the knowledge of God, which is the Law. Now that I possess the knowledge of God, I understand all the prophecies.

I have been writing scripture ( written testimonies ) ever since June 16th, 2008. Here's an example;

No man has the truth except for those who have received it and is guarded by the one who gave it.

Only those who have laid down their life for it, can see it.

Truth is not of this world but it exposes this world for what it is and leaves it naked and exposed for those who understand it.

Truth was never intended for those who aren't truthful. Lies are their nature.

Truth has the right to condemn those who don't have it.

Truth is the justice that mere man cannot conceive. The injustice man does, keeps him from it.

Life is chaotic to those who don't bear it, but is understood by those who do.

One can never know what truth really is until he has it. Then he will understand that its true.

Nobody can buy the truth because its not for sale. It is freely given to those who ask for it.

What you see is not always the truth because your eyes deceive you and your ears don't hear.

Truth is the righteousness that excludes men. Not to be seen until they are righteous.

Truth is more precious than gold, and gold is more precious than silver. A miner of truth will tell you that.

Give a man the truth and he will know your heart but don't trust a man without it.

Truth wasn't made for man's eyes because he is blind. Without his blindness he will see the truth.

Truth is not what you think it is, it's what you know it is.

Truth can't be defined in man's laws, because there's no truth in man.

Truth is freedom for those who lay down and die. Then they can live with the truth.

Truth avoids those who look for it but when it finds you, you will no longer look for it.

Give a man the truth and it will no longer be true.

[Psalm139]

.

The only way to know who is a false prophet or not is if you're one of God's saints who possesses His knowledge.

Are we fortunate to have among us some who possess God's knowledge?

That depends on if you're fortunate enough to be chosen by God to listen to His voice.

How can we know that those who claim to be "saints" are anything more than self-identified "prophets" who are false prophets?

My sheep will hear My voice and believe.

We go by what is written and spoken, not whether or not one looks like a prophet or not.

Those who have God's knowledge should have outstanding ability to present ideas flawlessly. Right?

That depends on if you're a chosen believer or a chosen antichrist.

If someone trying to present or defend God stories and claims does not fare well in debate, might that be indication that they lack the claimed knowledge from God?

I'm not here to defend God's biblical stories. I'm only here as the voice of the Lord and whoever is chosen to listen to His voice will understand Him.

[Haven]

Those of us who possess the Truth do not need to use terms like, "circular reasoning". Only the confused use terms like this.

Why would I be mistaken about my true created existence? It's you who doesn't know your true self.

You're not exempt from the rules of logic simply because you claim to be a "saint." Circular reasoning--which you've engaged in numerous times--is a logical fallacy. Period. It's irrational, no matter who you are.

Anyway, this is off topic; the thread was about Paul and Joseph Smith. Do you have any comments on distinguishing between those two? How can one be a "saint" and not the other? And please use actual arguments, not claims to hearing "The Voice of the Lord." Not everyone believes that your lord exists.