Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[Religio71]

i think when saying that LDS believe that God has a body of flesh and bones, we’re referring to God the Father, and not Jesus Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

By definition one cannot be considered a formal heretic unless they are first Catholic, then persist in belief of a doctrine that conflicts with the Catholic faith. Luther was a formal heretic, but Lutherans of today who were raised in the Lutheran faith are not, formally speaking, heretics because they were never Catholics. They hold to a heterodox belief system, but are not thereby heretics in the strict sense.

Regardning the LDS Church, the question was raised and settled a while back concerning the validity of the LDS rite of baptism. To paraphrase the findings, although the LDS baptizes with a trinitarian formula, its teaching on the nature of the trinity is so far from accepted christian doctrine that the baptism cannot be recognized as valid. Thus, if one were to define a "Christian as one who has been validly baptized and is a follower of Jesus Christ, then LDS members fail to meet the requirement because their form of baptism is not valid. The official response by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Ratzinger) is here.

However, I would like to point out, as one who knows several LDS members including some family members, that I have no doubt there are many sincere LDS members who are trying their best to follow Christ. The invalidity of LDS baptism is not a reflection on LDS members character (see here), but it reflects the distinction in doctrine that is recognized on both sides. (See here)

Peace,
Robert

P.S. - Does the LDS Church recognize the validity of Catholic baptism? I don’t think so because they reject infant baptism. However, I would like to hear any more details that LDS friends here could provide.

Robert,
You mentioned the definition of Christian as distinct from a “follower of Christ”. It sounds to me like the word was, shall we say, copyrighted by the Catholic church way back when, so the Pope gets to define the word? It’s always interesting to me that the Bible is not considered the valid source for the definition. But that makes the use of the word totally subjective, based on an individual person’s point of view.

 

[dianaiad]

Robert,
You mentioned the definition of Christian as distinct from a “follower of Christ”. It sounds to me like the word was, shall we say, copyrighted by the Catholic church way back when, so the Pope gets to define the word? It’s always interesting to me that the Bible is not considered the valid source for the definition. But that makes the use of the word totally subjective, based on an individual person’s point of view.

Indeed.

the definition of “Christian” as “he who believes what I approve of.”

 

[GodIsGracious]

Robert,
You mentioned the definition of Christian as distinct from a “follower of Christ”. It sounds to me like the word was, shall we say, copyrighted by the Catholic church way back when, so the Pope gets to define the word? It’s always interesting to me that the Bible is not considered the valid source for the definition. But that makes the use of the word totally subjective, based on an individual person’s point of view.

It’s not that the pope gets to define the word, Catholics were the original Christians. As much as you dislike it, we get to define it.

Call yourself a Christian all you want, but never forget, it was the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ founded and we gave the book assembled as it is to the world.

You won’t agree of course.

 

[ParkerD]

It’s not that the pope gets to define the word, Catholics were the original Christians. As much as you dislike it, we get to define it.

Call yourself a Christian all you want, but never forget, it was the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ founded and we gave the book assembled as it is to the world.

You won’t agree of course.

God Is Gracious,
I don’t agree that Christ founded the Catholic Church. I would say that He re-defined the church that was already on earth when He was a boy. I don’t know that He named the re-defined church at all. The Bible doesn’t say that He did. He seems to have been comfortable attending the Jewish synagogue and preaching there.

So you’re saying that since the compilers of the Bible record own the copyright, and you know how they still think, that you “get to define ‘Christian’”? I still don’t understand why you don’t believe that the Bible defines “Christian”. But I certainly understand where you’re coming from, and it’s not from the Bible at all. It’s a human behavior, and a very logical one that is common in every culture. That was actually my point about the definition process.

I care what Christ thinks of me, not what you think of me or say about me. But again, believe as you like and define terms as you like. Christ wasn’t much into labels, anyway.

 

[Finrock]

Hello aileron! Glad to meet you.

We are in perfect agreement.

Awesome! Sounds like you may need to change your Religion label from atheist to LDS.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[MelanieAnne]

Joseph Smith can’t be a prophet, because he preached a different gospel. I honestly could care less what Mormons think of Catholic beliefs and how the Bible is to be interpreted, because, quite frankly, they are not Christians and they are followers of a false prophet.

Moreover, Joseph Smith’s visions of Jesus and God and of the angel Moroni are private revelations, and since private revelation isn’t binding on Christians, there is no reason whatsoever to worry over it. End of story.

This is correct and is in accordance with New Testament warnings against “other gospels”. This warning applies not only to the heresy perpetrated by Joseph Smith but also the heresy of Islam.

Further, there are numerous examples of total nonsense in the Book of Mormon, the alleged “scripture” brought forth by Smith. These examples have been provided numerous times in this forum and a simple search will reveal them, so there is no need to repeat them here. It is likely that Smith never dreamed that, at some later point in time, clear and convincing evidence of his fraud would be set forth, but it has been, and very clearly so. It may be hard for some adherents to come to grips with, but Smith and his book are a total fraud.

It is not just that there is no evidence FOR Mormonsim, it is that there is a wealth of evidence showing Mormonism is a fraud. There is no rational basis for believing in Mormonism. Perhaps someone may concede that they like the “lifestyle” of Mormonism or the “social network” of Mormonism, but nothing about the theology has any basis in reality. That’s just a fact. To argue in FAVOR of Mormonism requires anyone doing so to deny facts and reality.

Since we have, in this forum alone, evidence from Mormon members that even if the Mormon story were proved to be a total fraud, yet they would still believe, this assertion is not a stretch. Mormonism is a faith founded on fraud by a con man and furthered by the hopes and dreams of its members even today. They may WANT it to be true, but that doesn’t mean that it is. There is no foundation in fact in Mormonism, there is no basis in reality, there is no rational basis whatsoever, its simply a lifestyle choice.

Smith was not a prophet from God. Indeed, when you consider the many people that have been seduced away from Christianity by his fraud, a compelling case can be made that he was an agent of Satan.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening MelanieAnne! I haven’t seen you posting lately. I hope you are doing well and welcome back.

This is correct and is in accordance with New Testament warnings against “other gospels”. This warning applies not only to the heresy perpetrated by Joseph Smith but also the heresy of Islam.

Further, there are numerous examples of total nonsense in the Book of Mormon, the alleged “scripture” brought forth by Smith. These examples have been provided numerous times in this forum and a simple search will reveal them, so there is no need to repeat them here. It is likely that Smith never dreamed that, at some later point in time, clear and convincing evidence of his fraud would be set forth, but it has been, and very clearly so. It may be hard for some adherents to come to grips with, but Smith and his book are a total fraud.

It is not just that there is no evidence FOR Mormonsim, it is that there is a wealth of evidence showing Mormonism is a fraud. There is no rational basis for believing in Mormonism. Perhaps someone may concede that they like the “lifestyle” of Mormonism or the “social network” of Mormonism, but nothing about the theology has any basis in reality. That’s just a fact. To argue in FAVOR of Mormonism requires anyone doing so to deny facts and reality.

Since we have, in this forum alone, evidence from Mormon members that even if the Mormon story were proved to be a total fraud, yet they would still believe, this assertion is not a stretch. Mormonism is a faith founded on fraud by a con man and furthered by the hopes and dreams of its members even today. They may WANT it to be true, but that doesn’t mean that it is. There is no foundation in fact in Mormonism, there is no basis in reality, there is no rational basis whatsoever, its simply a lifestyle choice.

Smith was not a prophet from God. Indeed, when you consider the many people that have been seduced away from Christianity by his fraud, a compelling case can be made that he was an agent of Satan.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I don’t know about every member of the Mormon church, but my knowledge of Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is based on reason, faith, and personal spiritual experiences. I haven’t come across any evidence that proved Mormonism a fraud. I argue in favor of Mormonism all of the time and I don’t deny facts or reality. I’ve also come across much evidence in favor of Mormonism, both the mundane and the spiritual. The more I’ve learned about Joseph Smith over the years, the more I’m convinced he is a true prophet of God. An imperfect man, for sure, but a true prophet nonetheless. I’ve also come to the conclusion that all of Mormonism’s true doctrine is founded in reality, as a matter of fact, I am convinced that it is the ultimate reality. I don’t struggle at all with believing that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and the Book of Mormon contains the word of God. I’m satisfied with my sanity, with my grasp on reality, and with my ability to reason and think rationally. I’m happy not only with the lifestyle and the social aspects of my religion, but I feel blessed to know that my religion’s teachings and doctrines are leading me to Jesus Christ. Because of my Mormon religion, my life has veered towards the Savior and it continues to lead me in my devotion to be a true disciple of Jesus Christ.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Religio71]

By definition one cannot be considered a formal heretic unless they are first Catholic, then persist in belief of a doctrine that conflicts with the Catholic faith. Luther was a formal heretic, but Lutherans of today who were raised in the Lutheran faith are not, formally speaking, heretics because they were never Catholics. They hold to a heterodox belief system, but are not thereby heretics in the strict sense.

Regardning the LDS Church, the question was raised and settled a while back concerning the validity of the LDS rite of baptism. To paraphrase the findings, although the LDS baptizes with a trinitarian formula, its teaching on the nature of the trinity is so far from accepted christian doctrine that the baptism cannot be recognized as valid. Thus, if one were to define a "Christian as one who has been validly baptized and is a follower of Jesus Christ, then LDS members fail to meet the requirement because their form of baptism is not valid. The official response by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Ratzinger) is here.

However, I would like to point out, as one who knows several LDS members including some family members, that I have no doubt there are many sincere LDS members who are trying their best to follow Christ. The invalidity of LDS baptism is not a reflection on LDS members character (see here), but it reflects the distinction in doctrine that is recognized on both sides. (See here)

Peace,
Robert

P.S. - Does the LDS Church recognize the validity of Catholic baptism? I don’t think so because they reject infant baptism. However, I would like to hear any more details that LDS friends here could provide.

The LDS Church does not recognize any baptism. All converts are rebaptized. Also, if one is excommunicated, you will be rebaptized. Catholics believe that baptism has a real, one-time effect on the soul, and therefore rebaptizing doesn’t do anything.

 

[DonLeon]

FYI:

The need for prophets, prophecy, and revelation, all ended with the birth of Jesus Christ, for He IS the Messiah and has fulfilled prophecy. Anything after Him may be considered private only.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem: gopray:

 

[GodIsGracious]

FYI:

The need for prophets, prophecy, and revelation, all ended with the birth of Jesus Christ, for He IS the Messiah and has fulfilled prophecy. Anything after Him may be considered private only.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem: gopray:

Yes! Like I said earlier:

“Personal revelations does not a religion make!”

I should put that in my sig.

 

[datamonkey]

If Joseph Smith were alive today, would you follow him?

If you knew about Joseph Smith’s involvement in the occult, “money digging” schemes/fraud (today it would probably involve stocks, the Kirkland Anti—Bank scam would still fit in nice into today’s world), the evolution of his revelations/stories (ie. 1820 vision and how it morphed over time - Joseph Smith’s original account doesn’t synch with the official church version adopted in 1847) and his questionable character (as testified by his neighbors), would you still accept him as a prophet?

I only mentioned a few areas of Joseph Smith’s history that should cause any reasonable person to stop and think whether this person is someone God would use as an instrument to fulfill his plan of salvation. My wife is LDS and heavily involved in the LDS Church. Virtually every member I know has high moral principles, is quick to denounce modern day charlatans but have a blind side when it comes to the huckster side of their own prophet. I can’t think of any other biblical prophet who had such a dubious background before and after God sought to use them to fulfill his plan.

If such a prophet appeared in modern times with the same questionable moral character you wouldn’t follow them. Why would you follow someone who is dead with the same questionable moral character? Joseph Smith displayed a pattern of deceit throughout his life and dealings with others. Why would you follow anyone that exhibited such immoral behavior?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Datamonkey ~ just to follow up on what you have stated ~ first there is the utterly immoral figure Joseph Smith that Mormons set up as a prophet, then there is the hoax called the Book of Mormon, clearly a work of 19th century fiction. Spiritually uplifting for some? Perhaps, but a work of fiction nevertheless. Many fictional works may be considered spiritually uplifting, but that doesn’t make them scripture. Science has proved the Book of Mormon story a hoax in a variety of ways, there are references to all manner of things in the Book of Mormon that are simply not factual; it is clearly the work of someone with an active imagination. Whether that imaginative person was Smith or one of his cohorts is a matter of some debate, but the fact that it is a fictional work is well established.

Then there is HOW the Book of Mormon allegedly came to be translated. I challenge any rational person to believe the story that Golden Plates (never actually SEEN with their PHYSICAL EYES by ANYONE except Joseph Smith) provided, and then taken away allegedly by an angel which were translated from a language that DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY and the translation was done in secret, out of view of any other human person, by Smith using magic rocks held in the bottom of a hat. Anyone told that story today would be laughed out of the room. Which is why Mormon missionaries conceal this story and why it is seldom discussed even among the faithful.

A real faith doesn’t have to hide its origins.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Datamonkey ~ just to follow up on what you have stated ~ first there is the utterly immoral figure Joseph Smith that Mormons set up as a prophet, then there is the hoax called the Book of Mormon, clearly a work of 19th century fiction. Spiritually uplifting for some? Perhaps, but a work of fiction nevertheless. Many fictional works may be considered spiritually uplifting, but that doesn’t make them scripture. Science has proved the Book of Mormon story a hoax in a variety of ways, there are references to all manner of things in the Book of Mormon that are simply not factual; it is clearly the work of someone with an active imagination. Whether that imaginative person was Smith or one of his cohorts is a matter of some debate, but the fact that it is a fictional work is well established.

Yep. And if Jesus Christ IS the Messiah, why is there any need to follow anyone else? There isn’t. Jesus Christ is perfect. Human beings are not. Jesus Christ is consistent. Human being are not. Which leads to your next paragraph, Melanie Anne.

Then there is HOW the Book of Mormon allegedly came to be translated. I challenge any rational person to believe the story that Golden Plates (never actually SEEN with their PHYSICAL EYES by ANYONE except Joseph Smith) provided, and then taken away allegedly by an angel which were translated from a language that DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY and the translation was done in secret, out of view of any other human person, by Smith using magic rocks held in the bottom of a hat. Anyone told that story today would be laughed out of the room. Which is why Mormon missionaries conceal this story and why it is seldom discussed even among the faithful.

A real faith doesn’t have to hide its origins.

Incidentally, when ever I think of Mormons I think of Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard had this to say:

“If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion.” - L. Ron Hubbard quote

 

[ParkerD]

Yep. And if Jesus Christ IS the Messiah, why is there any need to follow anyone else? There isn’t. Jesus Christ is perfect. Human beings are not. Jesus Christ is consistent. Human being are not. Which leads to your next paragraph, Melanie Anne.

Incidentally, when ever I think of Mormons I think of Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard had this to say:

God Is Gracious,
I suppose that you’re saying that L Ron Hubbard is the prophet you follow.

All this thread is child’s play for me, but I don’t have time at the moment. I look forward to responding to each assertion that has been raised. It will be fun. 'Wish I had the time right now, but I don’t. Have a good day, all.

 

[GodIsGracious]

God Is Gracious,
I suppose that you’re saying that L Ron Hubbard is the prophet you follow.

Uhm, no. Where did you get this idea? looks back at post No where is there any indication that I said I followed Hubbard. I merely quoted him.

And btw, Hubbard was not a prophet but merely a bad science fiction writer who was desperate to make money. Sort of reminds me of Joseph Smith. I did say that when I think of Mormons I think of Scientologists. (And before you twist THOSE words, I did NOT say I followed either. )

Just because I quoted someone doesn’t mean I follow them. Honestly, it really seems like, from the Mormons that post here regularly on this forum including you, ParkerD, Finfrock, and Dianaiad, that Mormons take things that is said by others and twist them around to mean something completely different that the original intent. Pretty much what you guys do with the bible. Infact, even the Mormons I know in real life do this. It is fortunate that they are no longer in my life. It was so tiresome.

I suppose I could say that’s how you justify following an imperfect schyster (Smith) - because it appears that’s what he did too - take things and twist them around.

All this thread is child’s play for me, but I don’t have time at the moment. I look forward to responding to each assertion that has been raised. It will be fun. 'Wish I had the time right now, but I don’t. Have a good day, all.

Well, that’s interesting. You consider your faith to be “child’s play?”

Knowing that you take what is said, twist it around to mean something completely different, pretty much makes whatever it is you have to say undependable. I can’t trust that you’re not going to take an “assertion” and completely mangle it to be something completely different and not what the author intended.

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon MelanieAnne! I hope you are doing well today.

Datamonkey ~ just to follow up on what you have stated ~ first there is the utterly immoral figure Joseph Smith that Mormons set up as a prophet, then there is the hoax called the Book of Mormon, clearly a work of 19th century fiction. Spiritually uplifting for some? Perhaps, but a work of fiction nevertheless. Many fictional works may be considered spiritually uplifting, but that doesn’t make them scripture. Science has proved the Book of Mormon story a hoax in a variety of ways, there are references to all manner of things in the Book of Mormon that are simply not factual; it is clearly the work of someone with an active imagination. Whether that imaginative person was Smith or one of his cohorts is a matter of some debate, but the fact that it is a fictional work is well established.

Then there is HOW the Book of Mormon allegedly came to be translated. I challenge any rational person to believe the story that Golden Plates (never actually SEEN with their PHYSICAL EYES by ANYONE except Joseph Smith) provided, and then taken away allegedly by an angel which were translated from a language that DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY and the translation was done in secret, out of view of any other human person, by Smith using magic rocks held in the bottom of a hat. Anyone told that story today would be laughed out of the room. Which is why Mormon missionaries conceal this story and why it is seldom discussed even among the faithful.

You seem to be convinced that Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is a hoax. You definately aren’t the first and I doubt you will be the last one to think that. One of the guiding principles of the Mormon religion is stated in the 11th Article of Faith:

*“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” *

I strive to live by this principle and I respect and recognize your agency to believe what you wish.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Bill_Pick]

FYI:

The need for prophets, prophecy, and revelation, all ended with the birth of Jesus Christ, for He IS the Messiah and has fulfilled prophecy. Anything after Him may be considered private only.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem: gopray:

Joseph also made some predictions about the future. In 1835 he predicted that in his own lifetime there would be a great gathering in Western Missouri of all the Mormon faithful before a new, huge Temple which was to be built for the event. Such a happening never came to pass. (Doctrine & Covenants Sec. 84: 1-6)

LDS say that Joseph predicted the United States Civil War. Yet thousands of Americans in 1832 already knew the war was coming just from their intelligent analysis of the current political situation over slavery and the theory of the State’s rights. What is far more serious to the outsider here is that in connection with this prophecy Joseph predicted that the War would draw Great Britain and other nations into the conflict thereby causing great destruction and famine. Yet this never came to pass. (Doctrine & Covenants Sec. 87)

In 1835 Joseph prophesied the coming of the Lord in 1891 to end the kingdom of earth. This never occurred either. (History of the Church Vol. 2, p. 182)

To the sincere inquirer into Mormonism such predictions and their non-fulfillment is a serious difficulty. Joseph claimed the predictions came from God and he prefaced the information with such phrases as "Thus sayeth the Lord, " “The word of the Lord is…” (Deuteronomy 18: 22)

 

[Bill_Pick]

Hello aileron! Glad to meet you.

Awesome! Sounds like you may need to change your Religion label from atheist to LDS.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Has any one heard of a atheist in a foxhole.

 

[ParkerD]

God Is Gracious,
OK. Here we go.

Uhm, no. Where did you get this idea? looks back at post No where is there any indication that I said I followed Hubbard. I merely quoted him.

I assume you quoted him because you like what he said. He was teaching you, then, I would suppose. A prophet was/is supposed to be a teacher of truth.

Just because I quoted someone doesn’t mean I follow them.

Then, why quote them?

Honestly, it really seems like, from the Mormons that post here regularly on this forum including you, ParkerD, Finfrock, and Dianaiad, that Mormons take things that is said by others and twist them around to mean something completely different that the original intent. Pretty much what you guys do with the bible. Infact, even the Mormons I know in real life do this.

I try to take a person like you at your word, and to understand what you write and try and get a person like you to take another look at your own thinking process. You may go ahead and quote the Bible passage you were referring to in your second sentence here. We can take an objective look at it, or at least try to be objective, you and I.

Well, that’s interesting. You consider your faith to be “child’s play?”

No–I just enjoy studying the Bible, looking things up and writing about those things. Reading the Bible and thinking about the implications are delightful for me personally. Plus, I do enjoy the thinking and writing processes as they go hand in hand.

Sometimes, the author’s intent is pretty clear and often it’s not clarity. Often it’s “pulling wool over people’s eyes.”

I try for clarity. Have a good day.