Joseph Smith was a prophet of God

So I will keep the same numbering order as they where presented in previous arguments. 1)"My opponent relied on possibilities as though the prophecy isn't clear. Such words as may, possible, may (again), have been a reincarnated Jesus do not hold water in this prophecy. If you review the prophecy, you will see that Smith talks about the 'coming of the Lord'--this is clearly a reference to Jesus' second coming, not some reincarnation or invisible visit to one person, Joseph Smith was clearly talking about Jesus' coming again to the earth. Also, even if my opponent is right and it was, in fact, a reincarnated Jesus, Joseph Smith died before 1891--the year that the coming of the Lord was to take place. And what does 'reincarnated Jesus' visit really looks like anyway? " -There is endless possibilities of what he meant by the 'coming of the lord'. Possibly Jesus never died, possibly he came in 1891, but has not yet showed himself yet. Maybe the lord showed himself to someone. -Let me correct my opponent, Joseph Smith died in 1891, not before, and even if he did it would irrelevant, because his death would have nothing with the 'coming of the lord'. -What 'reincarnated Jesus' looks like, would be irrelevant. 2)My opponent has decided to say that it is possible that the prophecy about gathering of the LDS people in a new Jerusalem is a metaphor. That this new Jerusalem could be the Mormon community itself. I do not this satisfies as an explanation. A new Jerusalem suggests that there is an 'old' Jerusalem--this old Jerusalem is a place (Jerusalem, Israel), not a community. Therefore, the new Jerusalem is also a place because it corresponds to the old Jerusalem which is a place. It is also clear from LDS writings that the new Jerusalem that Joseph Smith was talking about is, in fact, Independence, Missouri, US. It is a place, not some metaphor for LDS community as a body of believers. -Yes my opponent is correct, in the fact, that A New Jerusalem suggest an 'Old' Jerusalem, and yes there is a place name Jerusalem in Israel, but lets say this is still a metaphor. 'Old' Jerusalem could have been old Christianity, which the Mormon religion came from, since Jerusalem is a Christian center of the world, along with other religions with Judaic roots. -Not once does he ever say Independence,Missouri in this prophecy. It could have meant in the USA, or somewhere else in Missouri. And even if he did mean Independence, Missouri, it could very well mean that the Mormon religion religious' base would start in Independence,Missouri. 3)American history shows that only one nation was involved in the Civil war. That is the fragmented United States. Smith says: "and they (the South) shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations," (Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3). The problem here is that the Civil War was between the South and North in the US, never do we hear of Britain being called to defend any Southern states---this idea is ridiculous because States cannot make treaties with other nations, I find it not possible that some southern State would request the help of other nations. It cannot be shown in history either. -First of all, if you look at American history there were two countries fighting in the American Civil War. The Union(North) and The Confederacy (South). So it would be possible that The Confederacy could make treaties with other nations, since it was no longer apart of the Union, and no longer listening to the United States Constitution, because it considered itself an independent nation. -Second of all, the confederacy asked for help from Great Britain. They did not receive it, true, but they did ask for help, which was part of the prophecy. -Third of all, the civil war in ways, indirectly influenced The first world war, in being the breeding ground of new technology in weaponry. From muzzle-loading rifles to repeating breech-loader which meant it had *Faster Firing rate (It started the concept of 'clips'. ) *Longer Range *Better Accuracy In addition to the rise of armored iron-hulled ships(The first armored &metal vehicle in warfare. ), and also various ways to make low-to-mid grade explosives. If it wasn't for the advancements in weaponry that the civil war, then there would be no World War. For how could any country imagine warfare on such a massive scale with the inferior technology they had before the civil war. 4)For the prophecy about "not many days", my opponent responded that these could be in the eyes of the Lord days, but for us long years. Let's agree to disagree here. Although, usually to understand meanings pertaining to what God has said, theologians resort to the Hebrew language. So in the Bible, we could know what 'not many days' meant. Hebrew would help decide if its talking about eternity etc. I could see that my opponent has decided that these 'many days' could be a long time based on the fact that its been 173 years since they were uttered. If you lived in Joseph's time, I don't think you would interpret it that way, would you? And what reasons would someone give for interpreting them the way you do now during that lifetime? -No one here was in Joseph's time, so we would have no idea how someone then would interpret it. -My reasons for someone interpreting it the way I did, would be that we can not assume god's plan. *We do not if god meant in a few days in our time, or a few days in his time. *There could be multiple meanings in Joseph's words.