Comments about ‘Wayne Brickey: Prophet Joseph the teacher relied on sweet taste of truth’

I recently had an "interesting" convervation with a born again Christian. It went somthing like this:
He: Hello, my name is Dan (born again Christian), what's yours?
Me: My name is Bob (also a Christian of the LDS faith).
He: No, you are deceived, your name is really Jim (non Christian), that guy over there told me so.
Me: I am pretty sure I know what my own name is.
He; Nope, your Jim, no matter what you say or do, I know your name is Jim.
Me: Have a nice day!

Joseph Smith has baggage that most Mormons are not willing to look into. It is hard for me to sort out what is true and what is being portrayed negatively that is really customs of the time.

Hey, Anonymous, I'm LDS and I agree with you.

However, the only way my faith will be threatened is if someone digs up some dirt on the Savior.

As a convert, it has always been very difficult to explain the Joseph Smith part, particularly the polygamy thing. Non-Mormons laugh and think the whole thing is abominable.
Wonder if LDS Church would have had more credibility without polygamy and a "few other oddities".
Still enjoy the family history resources, though.

The Joseph Smith story is not believable as fact, but it is inspirational as half truths wrapped in fiction. The time is near when the church will have to own up to the the truth that mormonism is not based on historical facts, but on inspired imagination written as a how to book.

To Fredrico: I'm sorry to burst your bubble but the things that critics have been saying about the Church has been the same for ages. Fact is that Lehi is not of the tribe of Judah but of the tribe of Joseph. There is a big difference. This is what makes the whole DNA thing rubbish to begin with. Do you know of what house the Asians are part of? Neither do I but it is quite clear they were not of the house of Judah. Hard to say otherwise. The Church and its leaders continue to state as fact the first vision of Joseph Smith and other maniesfestations that he had as true. Can you disprove it? No, and not because you've never had one but because you weren't there. Both Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith testified of the Savior, Jesus Christ, appearing in the Kirkland Temple. There are other eyewitness reports of other manifestations around the dedication of said temple. Yet, our critics still deny this ever happened. Why, because as many state, GOD doesn't speak to man. Yet it is within me that I know that he does.

If the truth include lying I guess Ole' Joe is golden.

Well, I have spent years looking at the "baggage" some folks claim that the church has but after honest investigation, I have found it to be just so much gossip. Third and fourth hand testimony by people with an axe to grind. No witnesses, no evidence just reams of hearsay from people who were never there. Interesting those who were there never collaborated the "baggage". So, I have concluded there is no baggage, just mud throwing hoping some of it will stick.

Consider this if you will. In the first few pages of the Doctrine & Covenants, Joseph writes that God made him a personal promise, coupled with a stern warning.

The promise...so long as Joseph repented of his pride, and arrogance, and disobedience to the Lord...and continued in obedience to God's will...he would be protected by the arm of the Lord, and even the fiery darts of hell would have no affect upon him.

The warning...if Joseph continued in his pride, arrogance and disobedience...the Lord would withdraw His protection, Joseph would 'become as any man'...and 'HE WOULD FALL'.

I believe this explains the events of Carthage pretty accurately.

The Lord doesn't lie.

Perhaps the J.S. story is not believable,neither is the J.C. story, the Moses story, the tower story, the flood story, the Adam and Eve story, the creation story, the big bang theory, evolution, global warming; Obama won in 2008 or....... my nothing is believable, but doubt and the earth, creation, and all of us are just a dream not real at all.

As lds I've looked at it all too. Some isn't so good at times, but what church doesn't have a past with some bad things. Lds had nothing to do with the crusades or torture until converted etc... How many tools of torture and death were invented then. That was the catholics. No one seems to notice their past though, it's like critics somehow give them a pass. Either way, some rough spots in the past by no means threaten my testimony, whether they really happened or not.

TO JAYEG:

You actually are failing to understand the martydom of Joseph Smith. There was nothing that he could do to have kept this from happening except to have left and moved west. He came back to face his accusers and to certain death. He was also told in D&C 121 that he would live until his mission was completed. Just as many of the prophets of old including Peter, James and Paul he sealed his testimony with his blood.

Joseph knew the morning he rode the Carthage Jail that it was to certain death. He had accomplished all the Lord had asked him to do. He had translated the Book of Mormon. Restored all of the Priesthood Keys to the Earth and had bestowed those keys upon the members of the Quorum of the Twelve. He had restored all of the temple ordainences and it was time for him to seal the testimony he bore with his blood. "Therefore, hold thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for the bounds are set, they can not pass. Thy days are known and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do."

You say the following, "The Church and its leaders continue to state as fact the first vision of Joseph Smith and other maniesfestations that he had as true. Can you disprove it? "

Joseph wrote two accounts of his "first vision." One has Jesus only. The second has Jesus AND God. Both were introduced to the membership 20 years after the "fact."

Tell me, which one is correct and why is the other not?

TO @BIll 2:27

Both are correct as neither contradicts the other. Do you tell the same thing to the different people? THere are times where you relate some things and others where you relate others. No the official one the Church uses is just the one that is used to relate the story. There are several versions of the First Vision. I have mine own that I relate differently depending on who I am talking to. Why because certain things I hold sacred as to why I was given to strengthen the testimony and my witness. I will not tell you anymore than Joseph Smith related his. Both are correct and both are and can be used. Does this bother you? If it does sorry but that is the fact of the matter.

Anti's have tried this point over and over again and have failed everytitme,

Here a good example why you are wrong:


If I went some place and met two people there: Bob and Fred,

then the next day or later I told someone I had met Fred,

and then later again I told another person I had met both Bob and Fred,


Did I lie? Or did I tell truth BOTH TIMES!?


It's really that simple,

no conflicts, both accounts are true.

Now move on to something worthwhile.


Joseph Smith was an imperfect human being, even chastized by God on more than one ocassion,

but our time in the flesh is time of probation and proving, and testing, and of learning,

But imperfect as he was, Joseph Smith was also a Prophet of God.

You can spend your time fighting that point and making a big deal over every little thing he did,

or you can spend your time spend doing that which is worthwhile and good.

Its all institutional superstition. That goes for Moses, Jesus and Joseph Smith as well as the Torah, Bible and the Quran. None of it is any more valid than Greek or Roman mythology.

Wayne,

Thank you for moving on to other topics. I was, frankly, becoming very bored and annoyed with the "His Manger" articles week after week after week.

My only response to this article, Mr. Brickey, is...

...Whaaaaat?

When you have not prove against Joseph Smith, you try to tear down credibility. This is a common tactic of defense lawyers that have nothing else to stand on.

Who exactly are you trying to defend with the no proof angle?