The story of Jesus was made up by the Roman Empire

[Uncle Sparky]

Yashva ben Yusef probably existed, but wasn't called Jesus until about 50 years after his death. Crucifixion was for political prisoners, so from the Romans' perspective, he was a rebel. No prophet motive.

[Elok]

No. Smith claimed to be bringing back the Church as started by Christ, at the behest of Christ. He may be viewed as a founder by outsiders and less informed members, but within the LDS doctrine he's just another prophet in a long line of them. Christ is at the head of the LDS Church. Thus, "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"... rather than "Church of Joseph Smith". "Mormons" is just slang (and was derogatory at first) started from outside the Church.

The only real difference between that and the hypothetical Romans is the Romans would have been dealing with populations far less knowledgeable of Jesus' life, and far less able to communicate their own knowledge (if any) about it.

From that perspective, Mohammad wasn't the founder of Islam, either; he, too, was simply "restoring" a corrupted faith. Nuh-uh. Smith made enough changes to existing Xian doctrine that, from any sensible perspective, he was the founder of the LDS.

EDIT: to cut short what will otherwise undoubtedly become a very irritating argument, Smith's experience was obviously very different from that of any hypothetical prophet trying to invent a recently-deceased Jesus nobody to date had ever heard of.

SECOND EDIT: If I referred to Martin Luther as the founder of Lutheranism, nobody would object, although they view it as Christ's church. Luther, like Smith, Calvin, Russell, etc., merely founded a particular branch of the Christian faith.

[rah]

Why does anyone go to university rah?

Again, you prove just how clueless you are. Thanks for that.

[Aeson]

From that perspective, Mohammad wasn't the founder of Islam, either; he, too, was simply "restoring" a corrupted faith. Nuh-uh. Smith made enough changes to existing Xian doctrine that, from any sensible perspective, he was the founder of the LDS.

Somewhat similar. Mohammed was also relying on an imaginary (or at least non-verifiable) figure to give him the authority. Though the wording of the Koran seems much stronger in implying the significance of Mohammed than the authority texts in cases like Joseph Smith, Martin Luther, etc.

It makes a lot of sense to invent (or if you're religion is the one true one, have) an authority figure for a religion to be based off of, rather than try to generate all the authority in your own self. This is because people are fallible, and so a religion based on a verifiable personage is likely to get a lot of bad press pretty quickly... greatly diminishing it's prospects. Having a god or past figure who can't tarnish their own reputation going forward ads stability to the religion.

EDIT: to cut short what will otherwise undoubtedly become a very irritating argument, Smith's experience was obviously very different from that of any hypothetical prophet trying to invent a recently-deceased Jesus nobody to date had ever heard of.

You're not going to cut anything short by adding more claims to your argument. The only way to cut it short is to stop adding to it.

The hypothetical about the Romans creating Christianity to control people isn't really that far off from the truth. The truth (either way you look at it) is that people who hat never met Jesus ... at least some of whom were Romans ... were largely respinsible for the religion based on Jesus becoming what it became. (Jesus himself didn't seem very interested in breaking away and becoming Christian even in the Christian accounts of his life.)

SECOND EDIT: If I referred to Martin Luther as the founder of Lutheranism, nobody would object, although they view it as Christ's church. Luther, like Smith, Calvin, Russell, etc., merely founded a particular branch of the Christian faith.

I would object if you were to say Martin Luther presented himself as the founder of the religion and didn't base his claims largely on previous teachings of some unverifiable personage(s). Martin Luther wanted to reform the church, which of course would be to make it different ... but not really to create a new religion. More of a tweak of an existing one.

He didn't invent any of those personages he relied on either. They had already been invented (if they were). Joseph Smith probably did invent some of the personages (Moroni, everyone in the Book of Mormon) if we assume he wasn't telling the truth. Which is why it's very similar to the hypothetical about if Brigham Young had invented Joseph Smith.

The only real difference is that Brigham Young would have had a harder time than Joseph Smith did with is personages given the claims about them. Joseph Smith would have been a verifiable personage to a large percentage of the people in the LDS Church and anyone in the areas it was in at the time.

Jesus on the other hand would not have been verifiable by most people 60 years after his supposed death. And even the few who might be able to discredit the claims would have had very limited ability to communicate that to a wide audience, and even if they did, their own claims would have very difficult to impossible to verify.

[Wezil]

Now this bizarre claim...Eventually there won't be any outrageous claims left to say, at least not that anyone can say with a straight face....

Oh please. Religion is a long way from extinct. You will have plenty of bizarre and outrageous claims to cling to for the rest of your life.

[Wezil]

Bull**** religions aren't hard to create. Look at the Mormons.

The US specializes in it. Scientology.

[Robert]

No such people. The Greeks made them up because they were tired of running the Mediterranean directly. They're lazy that way. Similarly, there is no such person as "Robert Plomp," and you were a fool to ever believe there was.

Now things are getting less complicated....
So if I can give proof that I exist, we've established proof as well that Jezus existed?

[Ben Kenobi]

Let's see. Luther broke away, founded his own religion and got married and had kids..

Smith broke away, founded his own religion and got married and had kids.

Sure some of their teachings differ - but the core is the same. Both asserted that they were the primary authority in interpreting scripture. Both altered scripture to suit their own needs, Luther in removing books he disliked, Smith in adding the Book of Mormon.

[Ben Kenobi]

If I referred to Martin Luther as the founder of Lutheranism, nobody would object, although they view it as Christ's church. Luther, like Smith, Calvin, Russell, etc., merely founded a particular branch of the Christian faith.

Smith isn't Trinitarian, Luther is - this is a significant difference. Christians are Trinitarian, this includes Luther and excludes Smith.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, you prove just how clueless you are. Thanks for that.

I'm happy with what I paid to get a history degree. Perhaps it is you who should apply for a refund, since you said your degree provided nothing of value to you in your career.

[Elok]

Smith isn't Trinitarian, Luther is - this is a significant difference. Christians are Trinitarian, this includes Luther and excludes Smith.

Kids, kids. As far as Daddy is concerned, you're all heretics. Whether one particular batch of heretics is so extreme as to merit the label "has cooties" "non-Christian" is a fairly abstruse and irrelevant question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kids, kids. As far as Daddy is concerned, you're all heretics. Whether one particular batch of heretics is so extreme as to merit the label "has cooties" "non-Christian" is a fairly abstruse and irrelevant question.

Not so. There's a difference between Schismatics, heretics and cults. Smith is the latter, Luther the middle and you folks the former.

[Elok]

Yeah. We're schismatic 'cuz you're heretics.

[Uncle Sparky]

I'm a humanist atheist. But I did die and I am alive now. Give me my own religion, damn it!

[kentonio]

Let's see. Luther broke away, founded his own religion and got married and had kids..

Smith broke away, founded his own religion and got married and had kids.

Sure some of their teachings differ - but the core is the same. Both asserted that they were the primary authority in interpreting scripture. Both altered scripture to suit their own needs, Luther in removing books he disliked, Smith in adding the Book of Mormon.

Yeah, in Luther's case it was clearly nothing to do with the Catholic churches practice of selling indulgences. Whats wrong with the entrance to heaven coming with an admission fee after all?

As for translating the bible into a language the common people could actually understand, well how much more heretical can you get?