Can even a "true" prophet have false revelations?

[Reid]

Even Joseph Smith had to admit that some of his “revelations” might be of man or even of the devil. Comp Hist 1:165. This is contradictory in concept to the Deuteronomy 18:22 test, which says that the failure of the test indicates that the prophet is false. Joseph Smith here implies that the prophecy may be false, but the prophet himself is apparently still a prophet. One might ask then, what good is a prophet?

Hyrum Smith, who was also a “prophet,” on Nov 1, 1831, commented about prophecy and said that “if you hit once in 10 times, that is alright.” [quoted by Abraham O. Smoot in 1868 at the Provo School of the Prophets]
This also is a contradiction of Deut 18:22.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This has been talked about a few times on different threads. From what I could understand the prophet only gets revelations at certain times and when he does he presents it to a group of elders for discussion and approval.

 

[majick275]

Of course anyone who disagrees with a sitting prophet is considered to be an apostate as are any members who don’t sustain the prophets “revelations”.

 

[Vidar]

The most common answer I have gotten from LDS apologists is a quote from Joseph Smith. “A prophet is only a prophet when he acts as such”. This quote, which is not a part of the standards works raises more questions than it solves.

• How do we determine if a prophet is acting as a prophet? Brigham Young said that God had revealed to him that Adam is our Father and our God. Present day apostles admit that he taught this and that he was wrong.
• This quote is not a part of the LDS standard works, but is used to neutralize other statements that are not from the standards works. A bit arbitrary maybe?
• Was Joseph Smith acting as a prophet when he stated that? How do we know?

Vidar

 

[majick275]

The case of JS has a particularly noteworthy example of this. When he sent his folks off to sell the copyright to the BoM and they returned unsuccessful. They questioned how this could have happened since JS sent them due to a “revelation”. His reply was “some revelations are of God, some are of the devil”.

I would think that those who receive the latter are false prophets.

 

[amgid]

Reid:

Even Joseph Smith had to admit that some of his “revelations” might be of man or even of the devil. Comp Hist 1:165. This is contradictory in concept to the Deuteronomy 18:22 test, which says that the failure of the test indicates that the prophet is false. Joseph Smith here implies that the prophecy may be false, but the prophet himself is apparently still a prophet. One might ask then, what good is a prophet?

Can you give the exact quote? I am not certain that Joseph Smith actually said that, and I don’t have the book you are referring to on hand to check.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

Can you give the exact quote? I am not certain that Joseph Smith actually said that, and I don’t have the book you are referring to on hand to check.

amgid

Here is the exact quote:

Some revelations are of God:
some revelations are of man:
and some revelations are of the devil.

Keep in mind that there are MANY prophecies of JS that have been challenged.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Here is the exact quote:

Some revelations are of God:
some revelations are of man:
and some revelations are of the devil.

This is a very different thing from the quotation that Reid had attributed to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith here is not referring to his own revelations. He is referring to revelatory claims made by other people in general. He is saying that when someone claims to have received a revelation, that revelation may not necessarily come from God. But he always maintained that his own revelations came from God, and I accept that is the case.

Keep in mind that there are MANY prophecies of JS that have been challenged. Reply With Quote

I don’t accept those “challenges” as being valid. If you think that those “challenges” have any validity, the burden of proof rests on you to quote and justify them, not on me.

amgid

 

[majick275]

How do you get that meaning of JS quote when that was his response to the failure of selling the BoM copyright?

There are far too many challenged JS prophecies to list here on a single thread. My point in stating that was that this isn’t the only “claim” of failed prophecy. When we go on to BY we get an even muddier picture of what is even claimed by LDS doctrine to be revelation from God versus opinion. The D&C itself points out Original “witnesses” and first presidency members, apostles, etc. being deceived by revelations from Satan. surely you can see where this would at least cause one to require some degree of question as to a wether or not a “prophet” speaking to the church was giving revelation from God.(thus the OP)

 

[amgid]

majick275:

How do you get that meaning of JS quote when that was his response to the failure of selling the BoM copyright?

You did not quote me enough of the context to enable me to draw that conclusion. You need to give me enough of the surrounding context so that I know that you have not misunderstood Joseph Smith’s statement.

There are far too many challenged JS prophecies to list here on a single thread. My point in stating that was that this isn’t the only “claim” of failed prophecy. When we go on to BY we get an even muddier picture of what is even claimed by LDS doctrine to be revelation from God versus opinion.

You are speaking in general terms now, and I cannot discuss with you generalizations. You must be specific, and give specific examples or instances of what you assert so that I can discuss them with you.

The D&C itself points out Original “witnesses” and first presidency members, apostles, etc. being deceived by revelations from Satan.

You must be specific and give specific examples so that I know what you are referring to. Making such sweeping general statements make it impossible to discuss them with you.

surely you can see where this would at least cause one to require some degree of question as to a wether or not a “prophet” speaking to the church was giving revelation from God.(thus the OP)

No, I cannot see that at all, not unless you give specific examples of what you are talking about.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

You did not quote me enough of the context to enable me to draw that conclusion. You need to give me enough of the surrounding context so that I know that you have not misunderstood Joseph Smith’s statement.

Yet you seemed to think it enough material to tell us what JS meant…

You are speaking in general terms now, and I cannot discuss with you generalizations. You must be specific, and give specific examples or instances of what you assert so that I can discuss them with you.

OK. When is a prophet a prophet? When a prophet speaks when is it revelation? Ezra T. Benson tells us that the current prophet is more important than the standard works… How can we know what specific words from LDS prophets are intended by God to be binding doctrine?

You must be specific and give specific examples so that I know what you are referring to. Making such sweeping general statements make it impossible to discuss them with you.

Hiram Page and his peep stone that seemed quite convincing to Oliver Cowdery and others. David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery accusing JS of polygamy and then being exed. Sidney Rigdon, William Law claiming that Joseph was wrong. There are a lot of examples. Show me which members of the first presidency prior to BY taking over didn’t receive revelation that was pronounced by JS to be wrong.

No, I cannot see that at all, not unless you give specific examples of what you are talking about.

Well we could start with BY and Adam-God, JS and men on the moon, Polygamy flip flops, status of Priesthood for “descendants of Cain”, eternal progression…let’s save some time and you tell me if you believe that any time an LDS prophet addresses the church he is speaking for God? (not his own opinion, only revelation) if you do then I am wrong on this issue and there is no reason to question. If you do not , then you agree that we MUSt question waht these “prophets” tell us so that may differentiate between revelation and speculation.

amgid

 

[sara888]

Look at the subjects of the LDS Testimony. How can anyone irrefutably know that the Book of Mormon is true, when it defies every historic and anthropological kind of evidence. Not only does scientific evidence refute any kind of Book Of Mormon civilization, it give concrete evidence of a totally different civilization in its place. Yet, any faithful Mormon KNOWS it is true.

Every true Mormon will testify that Joseph Smith was/is a true Prophet of God, yet I doubt if one Mormon in a thousand can accurately recite any 5 of this great Prophet’s actual prophecies. Shouldnít that raise some eyebrows?? Wouldn’t you think a church that bases its very existence on a latter-day-prophet would gladly publish an official book that lists every one of his sacred prophecies? Not the Mormons! For good reason!" Ed Decker

Sara

 

[Casen]

sara888:

Look at the subjects of the LDS Testimony. How can anyone irrefutably know that the Book of Mormon is true, when it defies every historic and anthropological kind of evidence. Not only does scientific evidence refute any kind of Book Of Mormon civilization, it give concrete evidence of a totally different civilization in its place. Yet, any faithful Mormon KNOWS it is true.
Sara

Sara,
You go way to far with science and what it does and does not prove regarding the Book of Mormon. The evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon is pretty compelling in my opinion. We’ve discussed it before here.

In any case, what scientific evidence do you have that Jesus healed the sick? How do you KNOW he did that? Anthropology? Science? Could it be that the Holy Spirit revealed to you that Jesus was/is indeed the Son of God?

Or, like doubting Thomas do you need to see to believe?

If faith a part of your life? Does the Holy Spirit play a part? Or do you rely only on science?

 

[majick275]

Yet we don’t start inculcating our children from early age to get up and tell people that they “KNOW” spiritual truths. We state our BELIEF, we hope, we have faith… This seems to me to be very different than the LDS testimony of I KNOW (fill in the blank). This seems especially problematic when people don’t “know” about the prophets, doctrines, etc. that they are giving testimony about. I’m not saying to be a doubting Thomas or seek for a sign (like a burning bosom even) I am talking about reading the available words of these prophets, reading these "scriptures, learning these doctrines at the very least before stating these types of testimonies. How you can “KNOW” that the BoM is “true” if you don’t know what’s in it? Or that JS was a true prophet if you don’t know what he prophesied. Surely it can’t be contrary to the Lords plan to first “study these things out” before you claim that you “KNOW” that they are true.

 

[Casen]

Can a person KNOW that Jesus is the Christ, the very Son of God? Or can one ONLY believe it’s true?

Can a person that starts out with only a belief, perhaps only a hope, a tiny bit of faith in Christ experience the power of the Holy Sprit develop and grow that belief until it grow stronger and eventually becomes actual knowledge. Is that possible for Catholics?

Can the Holy Spirit reveal a truth with such power, such profound force that one KNOWS it’s true?

I’d be very interested to know the Catholic position on this.

 

[Tmaque]

Casen:

Can a person KNOW that Jesus is the Christ, the very Son of God? Or can one ONLY believe it’s true?

Can a person that starts out with only a belief, perhaps only a hope, a tiny bit of faith in Christ experience the power of the Holy Sprit develop and grow that belief until it grow stronger and eventually becomes actual knowledge. Is that possible for Catholics?

Can the Holy Spirit reveal a truth with such power, such profound force that one KNOWS it’s true?

I’d be very interested to know the Catholic position on this.

Casen,

Speaking as a person who “knew” the LDS Church was true I can say that I don’t put a tremendous amount of stock in feelings. People “know” all sorts of things…their team is going to win, this relationship will last forever, etc, etc yet those feelings turn out to be wrong all the time. After I came to the very difficult decision that the LDS Church was not what it claimed to be I began to realize that all sorts of people “know” their religion is true. When you believe something very strongly, and everyone else in the group keeps saying they “know”, eventually you’ll think you “know” as well.

Do you think Muslim suicide bombers have ANY doubt about where they’re going after death? They KNOW they’re going to heaven…but are they? I have several cousins who are FLDS. They “know” GBH is a false prophet and the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy. They use your terminology and have some of the strongest testimonies I’ve ever seen. Does that mean they’re right? You can’t all be right in your “knowledge”.

Now, I’m not saying feelings aren’t important. I have a tremendous amount of feeling regarding the truth of the Catholic Church, but I would never say I “know” it’s true. LDS may feel like they have the truth because some people of other faiths are reluctant to say they “know”. But, the fact is, it’s just a matter of defining feelings.

I “know” the Catholic Church is true more then I “knew” the LDS Church was true. I “know” this in feeling, but much more importantly to me, I also “know” with my mind. If Catholics were to use the same criteria for calling what they believe “knowledge”, they would be saying “I know” every bit as much as LDS.

So, to answer your question, I don’t believe one can know emperically unless they have an emperical experience. LDS seem to think that their spiritual “knowledge” is as valid as emperical knowledge. So do FLDS, and I suspect so do many other religious extremists. So, spiritual “knowledge” is simply not as valuable as emperical knowledge. Because, they all can’t be right can they?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Yet you seemed to think it enough material to tell us what JS meant…

Well, that is what I understood from it based on what you had quoted. I saw nothing in there to link it to the “copyright” issue as you state. You must give me enough of the context for me to make that connection.

OK. When is a prophet a prophet? When a prophet speaks when is it revelation?

The answer to that is given bys the Lord in the following scripture:

D&C 68:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.
The only remaining question here is, how do we know when someone who speaks is “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”? The answer to that question was given by President J. Reuben Clark, counselor in the First Presidency, in the following quote:

"There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’

"…To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the cming of Johnson’s Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk.

“I do not know if this ever happened, but I say it illustrates a principle–that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’” (J. Reuben Clark Jr, “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?”)
In other words, the membership of the Church will know within themselves, if they have the Holy Ghost as they should, whether the speaker speaks by the Holy Ghost or not.

Ezra T. Benson tells us that the current prophet is more important than the standard works… How can we know what specific words from LDS prophets are intended by God to be binding doctrine?

I have already answered that in the other thread I had referred to.

Hiram Page and his peep stone that seemed quite convincing to Oliver Cowdery and others. David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery accusing JS of polygamy and then being exed. Sidney Rigdon, William Law claiming that Joseph was wrong. There are a lot of examples.

In your original post you had stated: “The D&C itself points out Original “witnesses” and first presidency members, apostles, etc. being deceived by revelations from Satan.” What you have quoted here is not a case in point. Hiram page was not in leadership position. He was deceived by revelations from Satan. Oliver Cowdery was temporarily confused by it, because the Church had only just been organized, and members were inexperienced, and such a situation had not arisen in the Church before. Then the Lord corrected that problem by revelation to Joseph Smith, and the matter was settled. As for the rest characters that you have mentioned, their situations were entirely different. Their case was not a matter of “receiving revelation from Satan”. Those people simply fell into transgression, apostatized, or were excommunicated. Lots of people apostatized and fell away in the early Christian Church. Judas Iscariot apostatized and fell away. Ananias and Sapphira similarly transgressed and perished. Lots of people did in the early Church, some in high positions some not. This has been the case in every dispensation. In the days of Moses too Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and 200 of the “princes” of the Israel rebelled against Moses, and perished in their transgressions. Nothing to do with “receiving revelation from Satan”. You appear to be very confused about LDS, and lash out against it aimlessly and haphazardly, without any order, clarity, or organization.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

Show me which members of the first presidency prior to BY taking over didn’t receive revelation that was pronounced by JS to be wrong.

The early leaders of the Church (those of them that didn’t apostatize, like Brigham Young) were in tune with the Spirit of the Lord, and were constantly in recewipt of divine grace and revelation in the discharge of duties. They are mostly not mentioned in Church history (although some have been mentioned) it was not required to be mentioned. But note the following quote from the D&C, addressed to Oliver Cowdery:

And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment. (D&C 28:8.)
In other words, he was given revelation for the discharge of his duties as a missionary among the Lamanaites; but they were not intended to be given as general directions for the whole Church.

Well we could start with BY and Adam-God, JS and men on the moon, Polygamy flip flops, status of Priesthood for “descendants of Cain”, eternal progression…let’s save some time and you tell me if you believe that any time an LDS prophet addresses the church he is speaking for God?

He is always speaking “for God”. See above. Listen to the last general conference of the Church. Everything that was said there, not just by the Prophet, was inspired by the Holy Ghost, and was “speaking for God”.

(not his own opinion, only revelation)

It depends on what you mean by “revelation”. If you mean “new doctrine”, then nobody has the right to introduce new doctrine into the Church just willy-nilly. Even the President of the Church cannot do it without following a set procedure, as was done with the canonization of the “Vision of the Redemption of the Dead,” received by Joseph F. Smith (D&C 138), or the Official declarations 1 and 2 (D&C pp 291, 293), for example. But if you mean counsel and exhortation inspired by the Holy Spirit, then all of it is “revelation,” even though their counsels may on rare occasions contain some errors of doctrine because men are fallible, and occasionally err in doctrine.

if you do then I am wrong on this issue and there is no reason to question. If you do not, then you agree that we MUSt question waht these “prophets” tell us so that may differentiate between revelation and speculation.

Of course we must question them. What a thing to say. It shows that you have no understanding of the LDS theological position. I never accept anything with my eyes closed; neither does the Church expect me to do so. But you don’t understand how the Holy Spirit works. If you have the Holy Ghost, you don’t need to actively “question” anything; you just know whether something is inspired by the Holy Ghost or not. When I attend the General Conference of the Church, I just know as I listen to them whether they are inspired by God or not. I don’t need to actively “question” anything.

amgid

 

[FCEGM]

Casen:

Can the Holy Spirit reveal a truth with such power, such profound force that one KNOWS it’s true?

I’d be very interested to know the Catholic position on this.

You would find the works of St. John of the Cross (who writes on the development of the spiritual life from the beginner in prayer to to the one raised to the highest contemplation) helpful in understanding the Catholic position. For example:

“. . .this interior wisdom is so simple, general, and spiritual that in entering the intellect it is not clothed in any sensory species or image, the imaginative faculty cannot form an idea or picture of it in order to speak of it; this wisdom did not enter through these faculties nor did they behold any of its apparel or color. Yet the soul is clearly aware that it understands and tastes delightful and wondrous wisdom. If a man were to behold an object never before seen in itself or in its likeness, he would be unable to describe it or give it a name no matter how much he tried, even though he does understand and find satisfaction in it. And if he should encounter such difficulty in describing what he perceives through the senses, how much greater difficulty he will ahve in expressing what does not enter through the senses. The language of God has this trait: Since it is very spiritual and intimate to the soul, transcending everything sensory, it immediately silences the entire ability and hrmonious composite of the exterior and interior senses,” The Dark Night of the Soul , Chapter 17, par. 3.

and. . .

“The light of grace which God had previously accorded this soul (by which He had illumined the eye of the abyss of its spirit, opened its eye to the divine light, and made it pleasing to Himself) called to another abyss of grace, which is this divine transformation of the soul in God. In this transformation the eye of the soul’s feeling is so illumined and agreeable to God that we can say God’s light and that of the soul are one, since the natural life of the soul is united with the supernatural light of God, so that only the supernatural light is shining - just as the light God created was united to the light of the sun, and now only the sun shines even the the other light is not lacking,” The Living Flame of Love, stanza 3, par.71.

Both books contained in The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross, translated by Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D., and Otilio Rodrigues, O.C.D., Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1979.

carmelite.com/saints/john/works/dn.htm

carmelite.com/saints/john/works/fl.htm

 

[sara888]

**Casen,
**Most other churches are apostate and have been since the death of the apostles.

Quote:
We declare it to all the inhabitants of the earth from the valleys in the tops of these mountains that we are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–not a church but the church–and we have the doctrine of life and salvation for all the honest-in-heart in all the world. Who else has got it? Is it to be found in the creeds of Christendom? It is not. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 173, 1868. Young."

No Mormon talks of a relationship with God through Christ (As Jesus himself points to in Scripture) but their connection to God (and Godhood itself) is only through the LDS system Mormon faith is not rooted in reality.
LDS is not a religion based upon reality and since Christianity is a religion of history, crucifixion, resurrection, it is a religion rooted in reality.

Joseph Smith is not the Holy Spirt, he was proven many times over as a false prophet.

What God would allow Polygamy, ?**

Sara**