Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I am seeing here are some very wonderful people here that are very misguided. I think that what they need to do is get the bible and really read it. They are going to see how their faith is really comming up short. None of the answers are consistent with the bible or eachother.

But Mr Smith was not a Prophet From God, If he was his teachings would be in tact with the scripture not the opposite. No one has the right to take the bible and turn it to what they want. It is not Gods words they are their words.

And I would sure be questioning that Church. I guarantee you that it will not know the answers. It can;t smiths ideals and Gods were not even close in meaning.
 
zerinus said:
In all ages of the world there have been true prophets alongside false ones. False prophets have contradicted the teachings of true prophets. In the days of Jeremiah, for example, there was a guy by the name of Hananiah who was a false prophet. He contradicted everything that Jeremiah taught. He came to an unhappy ending. You can read his story in Jeremiah chapter 28. His case was a rather dramatic example; but your question is kind of like that. If somebody made such a claim as you are suggesting (and many do), it would be up to you and me to discern by the Spirit who is telling the truth, him or Joseph Smith. We would be in the same situation that the Jews were in the days of Jeremiah and Hananiah. Each would have to decide for himself who is telling the truth and whom you want to follow. Luckily there is a way we can know. Each has to make that determination for himself.
Click to expand...
Very well put. I would agree that God has given us the means by which we can know whether a prophet/person is of God or not. The means is the Catholic Church, which has preserved the teachings of Christ whole and inviolate, just as He promised it would.
So much of Christianity, nay ALL of Christianity hinges on the immutable transmission of the Truth from age to age, generation to generation. If it is “lost” the promises of Christ become a fairy tale story. So the truth could never have been lost.

A simple linear argument with certain presumptions:
  1. God does not lie, nor break promises
  2. Jesus is God
  3. Jesus does not lie, nor break promises
  4. Jesus established his Church which He promised against which the gates of hell would not prevail.
  5. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles to help them preserve all His teachings
  6. Jesus promised to be with us unto the consummation of the world.
    Conclusions:
    A. Jesus keeps his promises, so the Church He established has always existed and never fallen away from the truth.
    B. Jesus lied and was therefore not God.
    C Jesus didn’t exist at all and none of it matters - it’s just a story.
I don’t believe B or C, so…I must accept A. This leads me to ask then, which is His Church, that has never fallen away and has existed from the beginning? There’s only one answer to that - The Catholic Church. As for false prophets, St. Paul had this very clear thing to say:

Galatians 1 - "6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another: only there are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. "
 
GodIsGracious said:
Didn’t Smith come to an unhappy ending?
Click to expand...
If you wanted to look at it that way, then so did Jesus, so did Peter, so did Paul.
And Smith’s teachings contradict the bible.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so!
It’s been shown all over this Non-Catholic Religions forum, the LDS on here just refuse to see it.
Click to expand...
I could say the same about you.
And you’re forgetting a more recent situation that of Joseph Smith and the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
I didn’t get what one.
I also don’t see how this relates to the 10 virgins parable.
Click to expand...
What I meant was that a testimony is a personal thing. My testimony of the truth of Joseph Smith is good enough for me. It is not good enough for you. You have to obtain your own. It cannot be “shared,” like the oil in the lamps. Each has to obtain his own. I know what I know to be true. You can contradict it all you want. But it won’t have any effect on me.
 
pickguard1 said:
Very well put. I would agree that God has given us the means by which we can know whether a prophet/person is of God or not. The means is the Catholic Church, which has preserved the teachings of Christ whole and inviolate, just as He promised it would.
So much of Christianity, nay ALL of Christianity hinges on the immutable transmission of the Truth from age to age, generation to generation. If it is “lost” the promises of Christ become a fairy tale story. So the truth could never have been lost.

A simple linear argument with certain presumptions:
  1. God does not lie, nor break promises
  2. Jesus is God
  3. Jesus does not lie, nor break promises
  4. Jesus established his Church which He promised against which the gates of hell would not prevail.
  5. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles to help them preserve all His teachings
  6. Jesus promised to be with us unto the consummation of the world.
    Conclusions:
    A. Jesus keeps his promises, so the Church He established has always existed and never fallen away from the truth.
    B. Jesus lied and was therefore not God.
    C Jesus didn’t exist at all and none of it matters - it’s just a story.
I don’t believe B or C, so…I must accept A. This leads me to ask then, which is His Church, that has never fallen away and has existed from the beginning? There’s only one answer to that - The Catholic Church. As for false prophets, St. Paul had this very clear thing to say:
Click to expand...
The whole of that argument hinges on your interpretation of the “gates of hell” prophecy. If that is wrong, then your elaborately constructed syllogism falls apart. It is not very clever.
Galatians 1 - "6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another: only there are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. "
Click to expand...
I could turn that round to you. Who is to say that your gospel is not the “other gospel”?
 
ParkerD said:
Religio71,
I respect your beliefs. It does baffle me that some Catholics have such a strong disagreement with LDS about what becoming a “partaker of the divine nature” and becoming an “adopted son of God” and co-heir with Christ, mean. To partake of the divine nature, to me, means to have divine attributes and divine knowledge–joyful knowledge, loving knowledge, freeing knowledge, always-allowing-agency knowledge. Knowledge brings power only if it used correctly.

Here are the words of 1 John 3:
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

“We shall be like him” and “purifieth himself even as He is pure” seem to me to be saying that the aim is to be as pure as Christ is pure, and to become like Him. Those qualities are what qualify us, through grace, to be in the presence of the Father. To be like the Son is to be divine, to have divine qualities–not through our own efforts, but through the grace provided by Christ.
Click to expand...
Parker, Do mormons still believe in a baptism for the dead
 
zerinus said:
What I meant was that a testimony is a personal thing. My testimony of the truth of Joseph Smith is good enough for me. It is not good enough for you. You have to obtain your own. It cannot be “shared,” like the oil in the lamps. Each has to obtain his own. I know what I know to be true. You can contradict it all you want. But it won’t have any effect on me.
Click to expand...
First of all, I am not contradicting anything. Who says? Jesus Christ. He started his Church on earth which is the Catholic church. As I have said it before, just because YOU don’t believe it doesn’t mean it is false. Again, I have stated that it has been stated Smith’s teachings contradict the bible. You just insist on interpreting the bible YOUR way in order to rationalize how Smith does not contradict the bible. Doesn’t mean it’s right.

Case in point: the parable of the 10 virgins is not about how you cannot share your oil i.e. I cannot share my testimony to make it someone else’s. The parable is about being prepared for when the bridegroom, Jesus Christ, arrives. It has nothing to do with not being able to share. Again, yet another Mormon TWISTING what is in the bible. :rolleyes:

Yes, Jesus, Peter, and Paul had an unfortunate ending.

You made an analogy using Hananiah who was a false prophet and Jeremiah. And I say that there is an even more recent story with the same analogy. Hananiah == Joseph Smith, Jeramiah == The Catholic Church and her teachings.

The more you folks talk, the more you expose just how twisted your thinking has become due to your false religion. 🤷
 
zerinus said:
The whole of that argument hinges on your interpretation of the “gates of hell” prophecy. If that is wrong, then your elaborately constructed syllogism falls apart. It is not very clever.
Click to expand...
First, it really isn’t a matter up for interpretation - it’s very simple. Jesus said it. Now, either it is true or not true. I find it hard to argue around some vague “interpretation” of what it means. Surely if the “gates of hell” (all evil/any evil) can’t prevail against His Church, nothing can. Second, I am flattered, but my syllogism isn’t elaborate. I never claimed it to be clever - it’s too simple to be clever.
zerinus said:
I could turn that round to you. Who is to say that your gospel is not the “other gospel”?
Click to expand...
You could - and I can actually answer it. The same Church that Christ established against which the gates of hell will not prevail, which has preserved that Gospel (lest you forget that’s where it came from in the first place.) If you believe otherwise then NO ONE can say for sure, and Christianity is reduced to people shrugging and saying I think that’s right or I guess that sounds OK. That would be pretty feeble support for a religion supposed to be founded by God for all time, possessing all truth. Anything but the Catholic Church doesn’t make sense if pondered honestly.
 
The following Mormon teachings are not in the bible, they’re not even in the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith practiced a make-it-as-you-go religion.
Code: 
      1- God has a body of flesh and bones.

      2- God is an exalted man.

      3- God is a product of eternal progression.

      4- Men can become gods.

      5- There is no eternal hell and punishment.

      6- Pre-existing spirits of men.

      7- Marriage for eternity.

      8- Polygamy is acceptable to God. See Jacob 2:24-33. Compare D&C Section 132. 

      9- Three degrees of glory.

      10-The whole Plan of Eternal Progression.

      11-A mother in heaven.

      12-New Testament era "Melchizedek Priesthood" with offices of Elder, Seventy (which has been discontinued in Stakes now) and High Priests.

      13-New Testament era "Aaronic Priesthood" with the offices of Deacon, Teacher and Priest.

      14-Church organization with Stakes and Wards, a First Presidency and President of the Church, Stake Presidents and Ward Bishops.

      15-Baptisms, washing and anointings, endowments and sealings for the dead, in other words, a second chance for salvation.
 
pickguard1 said:
Finrock, I have a theoretical question. If it is possible for new revelation to be contiunally and presently (meaning today or in today’s world) imparted, what would happen if an LDS member were to claim a revelation from God that said that the teachings of Joseph Smith/LDS Church had been wrong and that it wan’t the right way, but some other way?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the question. There is a hierarchical structure within the church which helps to ensure that there isn’t what I’m going to call “revelation chaos”. In other words, each person is entitled to receive revelation for their own lives, but it should always be measured up against the scriptures and the inspiried words of prophets and apostles. As you move up the priesthood hierarchy, your jurisdiction expands and you are entitled to receive revelation within the jurisdiction of your priesthood office, always bound by the principle that applies to personal revelation, until you reach the President of the Church, who is entitled to receive revelation for the whole church and, following the pattern given in scripture, is the only one who can supercede previous revelation whether ancient or modern.

So, to directly answer your question. If a person were to claim that they received revelation that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet of God, then it could and most likely would be discarded. The person is not entitled to receive revelation that supercedes currently revealed scripture or inspired words of latter-day prophets and apostles.

I hope this answered your question. If not, please let me know and I’ll try again. 🙂

Kind Regards,
Finrock
 
pickguard1 said:
Let my posting frenzy continue 😃
It would be interesting to find out if there is a Mormon application of a rite of penance. It follows that if Christ gave the authority to the Apostles to forgive and bind sins, it would be incumbent upon them to actually do so, (and hence the Catholic Sacrament of Confession). Sins are difficult to be forgiven or not forgiven if they remain unknown - and Christ didn’t give the Apostles an ability to see men’s sins without them being confessed. Interestingly, this is one of the major obstacles for most Protestant denominations with the Catholic Church - the complete rejection of the Church’s explicit authority to forgive sins. If the LDS retain this, they would be more akin to traditional Christians in this sense than most direct break-away denominations.
Click to expand...
I wanted to mention, which I haven’t really made clear so far, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does believe that confession is required for serious sins. I guess in that sense (going back to some of my earlier questions), bishops and stake presidents, as “judges in Israel”, have a pretty significant part in whether or not a person is forgiven. A non-exhaustive list of sins that Mormons must confess to their bishops to be fully forgiven are sins such as, “…adultery, fornication, robbery, embezzlement, fraud, false swearing, and comparable transgressions” (Encyclopedio of Mormonism).

We believe that sins of a “lesser gravity” (venial sins) must only be confessed to God or in cases where it is applicable, to the person you injured.
pickguard1 said:
I hope that your search for more information brings you to the knowledge of the Truth to be found in the Catholic Church. Truly, there isn’t really any question that can’t be answered irrefutably regarding the Church and its doctrines if looked at honestly.

Peace of Christ,
Will
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt your sincerity and so I do appreciate your desires for me to find the Truth. With all respect, for me, the question of whether or not the LDS church is true is a settled question, and has been for a long time. I try to be quick to acknowledge my ignorance, but I’ve no doubt as to where I can find the answers to my questions. I share the same assurance about my religion as you do about yours. 🙂

Kind Regards,
Finrock
 
Finrock said:
Good evening Bill Pick. I’m hoping you are healthy and happy. 🙂
Bill Pick;5303126:
Parker, Do mormons still believe in a baptism for the dead
Click to expand...
Indeed, we do.

Kind Regards,
Finrock
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this. How does this work? Does this mean I get “sucked” into being a Mormon when I’m dead (and I have no choice) if, say, some well meaning family member had me baptized after I’ve died? (This is more of a curiosity question. I personally don’t believe this at all, but I’m just wondering how Mormons have this worked out.)
 
zerinus said:
The whole of that argument hinges on your interpretation of the “gates of hell” prophecy. If that is wrong, then your elaborately constructed syllogism falls apart. It is not very clever.

I could turn that round to you. Who is to say that your gospel is not the “other gospel”?
Click to expand...
who let you back in? well we are prepared for your lies
 
Good evening GodIsGracious! 🙂
GodIsGracious said:
I’ve heard this. How does this work? Does this mean I get “sucked” into being a Mormon when I’m dead (and I have no choice) if, say, some well meaning family member had me baptized after I’ve died? (This is more of a curiosity question. I personally don’t believe this at all, but I’m just wondering how Mormons have this worked out.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for asking your question. Baptism for the dead is one of the ordinances that is perfomed in temples. We stand in as proxy for those who are deceased, usually for family members (this is why geneology is such a big thing in Mormonism).

We perform proxy baptisms because we believe baptism is essential for salvation and we believe that people who have not had an opportunity to learn or to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ will be given that opportunity in the afterlife. We believe that once a proxy baptism has been performed, the deceased person has an opportunity in the afterlife to either accept or reject that baptism performed on their behalf. Proxy baptisms are not counted as members of the Church. Free agency is sacrosanct in Mormon theology, and we believe there never is a time when a person is forced to join the Church. We simply make the ordinance of baptism available if the person desires to accept it.

I hope this answered your question. If not, please let me know and I’ll give it another go.

Kind Regards,
Finrock
 
Finrock said:
Good evening GodIsGracious! 🙂

Thanks for asking your question. Baptism for the dead is one of the ordinances that is perfomed in temples. We stand in as proxy for those who are deceased, usually for family members (this is why geneology is such a big thing in Mormonism).

We perform proxy baptisms because we believe baptism is essential for salvation and we believe that people who have not had an opportunity to learn or to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ will be given that opportunity in the afterlife. We believe that once a proxy baptism has been performed, the deceased person has an opportunity in the afterlife to either accept or reject that baptism performed on their behalf. Proxy baptisms are not counted as members of the Church. Free agency is sacrosanct in Mormon theology, and we believe there never is a time when a person is forced to join the Church. We simply make the ordinance of baptism available if the person desires to accept it.

I hope this answered your question. If not, please let me know and I’ll give it another go.

Kind Regards,
Finrock
Click to expand...
Actually, it did answer my question. Thank you very much. 👍
 
Bill_Pick said:
You must be kidding with this statement “Everything Joseph Smith taught agrees with the Bible” so are you saying the bible is OK with polygamy and Jesus had many wifes
Click to expand...
The bible IS ‘OK with polygamy,’(Abraham, Isaac, David and Solomon, anybody?) and there is nothing in the Bible that says that Jesus either was or was not married.

Nor do Mormons claim that there is.
 
GodIsGracious said:
I’ve heard this. How does this work? Does this mean I get “sucked” into being a Mormon when I’m dead (and I have no choice) if, say, some well meaning family member had me baptized after I’ve died? (This is more of a curiosity question. I personally don’t believe this at all, but I’m just wondering how Mormons have this worked out.)
Click to expand...
The ‘no choice’ bit is something that tends to get me a little riled.

Yes, we do baptisms in behalf of the dead. The choice, however, is absolutely THEIRS as to whether they want it or not.

Think about it a minute: if we are wrong, your ancestors won’t even be aware that any such thing was done–no effect.

If we are correct, then what WE say about it goes; and we say that those for whom this work is done have the absolute right to say ‘no, thank you,’ just as those whose doors missionaries knock upon here and now have the right to say ‘no thanks’ and close those doors…and if they say ‘no,’ then that’s all there is to that. There is no force or coercion involved. Ever.

It’s like a proxy marriage that is sometimes done here on earth, even now; you could get married in my name all you wanted to, but until I know about it, agree to it and ratify it, it means absolutely nothing.

In fact, the only coercion involved in the process happens when people refuse to allow the work to be done for their ancestors; they are the ones taking the choice away from their ancestors then, not us.

…and that, frankly, is very strange. If you (general, not specific ‘you’) believe in an afterlife, and that your ancestors live on, don’t you also believe that they are quite capable still of making their own decisions? Who gave you the right to take over that chore for them? Not only that, but if you are so certain that we are WRONG, and that our actions have no effect whatsoever upon your ancestors, what’s the problem?

I don’t get it.

Now if you were to initiate a similar process for all my dead Mormon ancestors, I would simply smile, hand over the information and say ‘go for it.’ If nothing else, it keeps them alive in our stories, our memories and our history…and that is very, very important. Not for them particularly, but for us.
 
dianaiad said:
The bible IS ‘OK with polygamy,’(Abraham, Isaac, David and Solomon, anybody?) and there is nothing in the Bible that says that Jesus either was or was not married.

Nor do Mormons claim that there is.
Click to expand...
Hi Dianaiad 👋 – With all due respect, it seems to me that every time polygamy is practiced (in any form) in the Bible it causes nothing but problems for everyone concerned. It always ends up in cat fights between the wives.

Also, has it ever occured to you that that may be the King always had his Mother as his Queen. The King would usually have more than one wife and only one Mother, so she was the Queen. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top