Was Joseph Smith a liar and false prophet?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes.

Winfield claims I'm bigoted for saying this. I think that's hilarious. Obviously every non-Mormon thinks this. If someone doesn't believe Joseph Smith was a liar and false prophet, they would believe the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are correct, and they would convert to Mormonism. Clearly if you don't follow Mormonism, you reject Joseph Smith. That means every non-Mormon is bigoted.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm not sure about him being a liar but I'm 100% sure he was a false prophet.

[Rob]

lol, false prophet? I don't know about that, jmf, but Smith was certainly a liar.

[minionofmidas]

Yes.

Winfield claims I'm bigoted for saying this. I think that's hilarious. Obviously every non-Mormon thinks this. If someone doesn't believe Joseph Smith was a liar and false prophet, they would believe the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are correct, and they would convert to Mormonism. Clearly if you don't follow Mormonism, you reject Joseph Smith. That means every non-Mormon is bigoted.

Huh? What? (Ignoring the Shakespeare quotes for a moment) The guy was a crazy who thought God was talking to him. That means he wasn't a "liar and a false prophet". Same goes for the founders of your religion, btw.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I suppose that would make him not a liar, but it would make him a false prophet. Anyone claiming to be a prophet who is not would be one. And if you're an atheist, that just means you consider all claimed religious prophets to be false prophets.

[John Dibble]

I'd say it's safe to say that he was a false prophet, like I view most supposed prophets. However, I can't say he was a liar as I'm unsure as to whether he was just a horny con-artist or a horny lunatic.

[Colin]

Of course the term "false prophet" assumes that there are some true prophets, which is a situation that I highly doubt ever truely occured. So he was definitely a false prophet, as most if not all prophets actually are.

Now onto the liar part. Personally I do think he was a liar, he wasn't a looney who thought God was talking to him but a con man who used Mormonism to obtained power, respect, and wealth. I remember reading somewhere, I really don't know where, that before he founded Mormonism he sold supposed Indian artifacts and was generally a rather seedy character. So I'll go with liar until proven crazy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

This is so typical of the left to attack the religious in terms which they would object to if it applied to a racial or ethnic leader.

I am NOT a Mormon, but am privileged to know many, including a Bishop.  Generally they are very good people.

I am also disguested by the attacks on the Scientologists.  I am NOT a Scientologist, but have also had the privilege of knowing a number of Scientologist.  From my association with a few of them, they also appear to be good people.

In conclusion, knock of the attacks on the religion of others!

[Ebowed]

Typical of the left, eh?  Last I heard, it was the Republicans' evangelical base which was having qualms with voting for Mitt Romney.

Oh well.  At least we can take solace in the fact that CARLHAYDEN is still an obnoxious hypocrite.

A secular humanist is an obnoxious sob who wants to impose his'her bigotry on others.  Kid needs psychiatric treatment.

FYI, attacking a religion's origins is not a direct attack on any of the people who follow the religion personally.  Calling Joseph Smith an adulterer doesn't mean that every Mormon is an adulterer.  Nor is stating very clear and plain facts about a religion's origins an 'attack.'

[Alcon]

This is so typical of the left to attack the religious in terms which they would object to if it applied to a racial or ethnic leader.

I am NOT a Mormon, but am privileged to know many, including a Bishop.  Generally they are very good people.

I am also disguested by the attacks on the Scientologists.  I am NOT a Scientologist, but have also had the privilege of knowing a number of Scientologist.  From my association with a few of them, they also appear to be good people.

In conclusion, knock of the attacks on the religion of others!

Knock off the attacks on their beliefs because most you've met are good people?

That's absurd.  You attack political positions held by decent people all the time.

[CARLHAYDEN]

This is so typical of the left to attack the religious in terms which they would object to if it applied to a racial or ethnic leader.

I am NOT a Mormon, but am privileged to know many, including a Bishop.  Generally they are very good people.

I am also disguested by the attacks on the Scientologists.  I am NOT a Scientologist, but have also had the privilege of knowing a number of Scientologist.  From my association with a few of them, they also appear to be good people.

In conclusion, knock of the attacks on the religion of others!

Knock off the attacks on their beliefs because most you've met are good people?

That's absurd.  You attack political positions held by decent people all the time.

Please reread the thread, as you do not seem to grasp the basic concept.

One can disagree with the tenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Scientologists for that matter and express those diagreements without calling the liars, false prophets, etc.

The disagreement is fine, the name calling isn't (at least to me). 

[Alcon]

This is so typical of the left to attack the religious in terms which they would object to if it applied to a racial or ethnic leader.

I am NOT a Mormon, but am privileged to know many, including a Bishop.  Generally they are very good people.

I am also disguested by the attacks on the Scientologists.  I am NOT a Scientologist, but have also had the privilege of knowing a number of Scientologist.  From my association with a few of them, they also appear to be good people.

In conclusion, knock of the attacks on the religion of others!

Knock off the attacks on their beliefs because most you've met are good people?

That's absurd.  You attack political positions held by decent people all the time.

Please reread the thread, as you do not seem to grasp the basic concept.

One can disagree with the tenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Scientologists for that matter and express those diagreements without calling the liars, false prophets, etc.

The disagreement is fine, the name calling isn't (at least to me). 

Excuse me as I lack much religious education, but I do understand the English language all right.  If you disagree with the legitimacy of a prophet, are they not "false prophets"?

And if you believe Joseph Smith was a liar, why can you not call him such?  Because his follows are "nice"?

[Lincoln Republican]

BRTD is obviously looking for validation for his ignorance and bigotry, so he starts another anti Mormon diatribe by asking a loaded, stupid question.

I see he has been joined by some others who share these same  narrow minded attitudes.

Congratulations for your efforts kids, but frankly, I've seen better commentary from ten year olds.

My advice to the lot of you, GROW UP!

As a refreshing change of pace, it is nice to see at least one open minded individual, CARLHAYDEN, contributing something intelligent to this otherwise asinine thread.

[Conan]

This is so typical of the left to attack the religious in terms which they would object to if it applied to a racial or ethnic leader.

I am NOT a Mormon, but am privileged to know many, including a Bishop.  Generally they are very good people.

I am also disguested by the attacks on the Scientologists.  I am NOT a Scientologist, but have also had the privilege of knowing a number of Scientologist.  From my association with a few of them, they also appear to be good people.

In conclusion, knock of the attacks on the religion of others!

That's why a Mormon holds one of the left's highest offices.

[??????????]

CarlHayden,

Why are you defending the criminal $cientologists?

[CARLHAYDEN]

This is so typical of the left to attack the religious in terms which they would object to if it applied to a racial or ethnic leader.

I am NOT a Mormon, but am privileged to know many, including a Bishop.  Generally they are very good people.

I am also disguested by the attacks on the Scientologists.  I am NOT a Scientologist, but have also had the privilege of knowing a number of Scientologist.  From my association with a few of them, they also appear to be good people.

In conclusion, knock of the attacks on the religion of others!

Knock off the attacks on their beliefs because most you've met are good people?

That's absurd.  You attack political positions held by decent people all the time.

Please reread the thread, as you do not seem to grasp the basic concept.

One can disagree with the tenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Scientologists for that matter and express those diagreements without calling the liars, false prophets, etc.

The disagreement is fine, the name calling isn't (at least to me). 

Excuse me as I lack much religious education, but I do understand the English language all right.  If you disagree with the legitimacy of a prophet, are they not "false prophets"?

And if you believe Joseph Smith was a liar, why can you not call him such?  Because his follows are "nice"?

Well, lets take your statements in order.

First, I am not suprised that you lack much religious education.

Second, with respect to your understanding of the English language, could you be so kind as to explain what "all right" adds to your assertion of your supposed understanding the English language?

Third, one of the nice things about the United States is that the First Amendment has a clause providing for the free exercise of religion.  So, you are free to believe what you want to believe, but that does not make your belief correct.  You may believe that Joseph Smith was a "false prophet," but that is merely your belief, not a fact.   

Fourth, you may also "feel' that Joseph Smith was a "liar," but once again, that does not make your belief a fact,

[Ebowed]

BRTD is obviously looking for validation for his ignorance and bigotry, so he starts another anti Mormon diatribe by asking a loaded, stupid question.

I see he has been joined by some others who share these same  narrow minded attitudes.

Congratulations for your efforts kids, but frankly, I've seen better commentary from ten year olds.

My advice to the lot of you, GROW UP!

Winfield, it's not offensive to question the origins of someone's religion.  Am I being equally offensive, as an atheist, by questioning the authenticity of Muhammed's recollection of the Angel Gabriel?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Winfield, it's not offensive to question the origins of someone's religion.

Actually it's very offensive. How could it not be? That's not to say that it's necessarily wrong to do so, but there's a difference between something being offensive and something being wrong.

[minionofmidas]

I suppose that would make him not a liar, but it would make him a false prophet. Anyone claiming to be a prophet who is not would be one. And if you're an atheist, that just means you consider all claimed religious prophets to be false prophets.

The term "false prophet" is a theological term with a reasonably well defined meaning. It has no meaning outside that context.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What would then be the point of adding the "false"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Prophet

[Alcon]

First, I am not suprised that you lack much religious education.

Well...no...it's not particularly surprising, if you knew me.  But I assume this is a veiled insult of some sort.

Second, with respect to your understanding of the English language, could you be so kind as to explain what "all right" adds to your assertion of your supposed understanding the English language?

Nothing whatsoever.  Just because I understand it does not mean I have to be pedantic about it.  And, by the way, who spelled "governor" wrong here, like*, forever?  Hint:  Not me.

* - Yes, I know.

Third, one of the nice things about the United States is that the First Amendment has a clause providing for the free exercise of religion.  So, you are free to believe what you want to believe, but that does not make your belief correct.  You may believe that Joseph Smith was a "false prophet," but that is merely your belief, not a fact.

I don't really believe or disbelieve either way.  This isn't about what positions I hold.

Fourth, you may also "feel' that Joseph Smith was a "liar," but once again, that does not make your belief a fact,

I'm well-aware and that is entirely irrelevant to what I'm asking.

Let me try to point out what I was actually asking:

1. You said that that people can disagree with religions "and express those diagreements (sic)  without calling the (sic) liars, false prophets, etc."

2. I asked you how it is unacceptable to call a prophet "a false prophet" if you believe they were not a real prophet.

3. So far, your only implied answer has been because "they...appear to be good people."  I asked what relevance this has to the teachings of their religion or not calling their leaders "false prophets."  So far, you have evaded this question and failed to respond.

[Rob]

The term "false prophet" is a theological term with a reasonably well defined meaning. It has no meaning outside that context.

^^^^

It connotes the existence of a true faith and a true prophet, which I obviously don't believe.

[John Dibble]

I am also disguested by the attacks on the Scientologists.  I am NOT a Scientologist, but have also had the privilege of knowing a number of Scientologist.  From my association with a few of them, they also appear to be good people.

Here's the thing Carl - most Scientologists ARE good people. They generally believe that they are doing good for the world, but mainly because Scientology has tricked them into thinking that. I typically never attack the character of specific Scientologists, with the exception of a few who either commit criminal or borderline criminal acts for the organization or those who actually run the organization and are most likely in on the scam. Most people here who have a problem with Scientology have a problem with the organization itself, as it is a cult and a scam created for the sole purpose of controlling people and making money. To this day Scientology destroys families, harasses critics, and other abuses sometimes including child labor.

[Person Man]

Liar. Maybe. False Prophet. Probably. Mormonism. Wierd and potentially dangerous. Individual Mormons? Can be pretty neat people, some are really wierd. I like the mormons in my class though.

[Kevin]

Liar No and false Prophet maybe but I don't think he though himself as so.