Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[DonLeon]

:tsktsk:

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)

Golly Gee. This sounds a lot like the predictions (or prophesying) made by that other
“Prophet of God”, Charles Taze Russel, of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
also know as Jehovahs Witnesses. Did CTR copy from JS? I wonder. Be that as it may, the thing is that all their predictions/prophecies proved false. Therefore, whatsoever they
pronounced in God’s name is FALSE and those that follow them are dupes, regardless of how true the pronouncement may sound or appear. They think they are following Jesus Christ and giving Him homage and worship, but they are NOT!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem :tsktsk:

 

[ricko]

Shame on you Parker.

Your words sound gracious such as (Have a good day) but the feelings you convey mean something else.

Everyone but you understood what God is gracious was saying and I think you really did understand. But your reply to him was dishonest. Twisting his words to mean something he never said nor meant was not nice of you. Since the Mormons are so good at twisting scripture (to their own destruction) I guess it should come as no surprise that they would do the same with statements made by others.

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon datamonkey! It is nice to meet you. I hope you are doing well today.

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.

It’s a good idea for anyone, ever, to stop and think about the decisions they are making. I don’t discourage anyone to study the history of Joseph Smith and I certainly would want them to gain a real and lasting testimony before accepting him as a prophet.

Perhaps the reason why we can’t think of any biblical prophet with “such a dubious background” is because we just don’t have anywhere near the amount of historical data for ancient prophets as we do for Joseph Smith. The historical challenge for Biblical prophets isn’t necessarily their background, but rather if they existed at all, because we simply don’t have the type of data for them as we do for Joseph Smith. Personally, I don’t doubt the Biblical prophets or their prophetic callings, but this is due to faith, pure and simple. So, although the substance of the challenge is different, the principle is the same; It is a challenge of faith and each individual choses to have faith or not.

No man or prophet, who has ever lived, has been without their flaws and weaknesses. I’ve applied the same type of questions you ask about Joseph Smith to myself in my own life, and my own callings at church (knowing my own flaws and my own history I am constantly baffled that God would trust me with anything). I can imagine Paul in the New Testament facing many of the same questions and doubts from those who knew his history of actively persecuting the early Christians. Did some people reject Moses because they knew he had killed an eqyptian? Was there some who doubted Abraham because he lied and was even going to go through with sacrificing his only child (I wonder how well that whole episode would go over in our modern society)? Even Jesus Christ was doubted because of his history and background. If we were to rely on the testimony of Jesus’ neighbors, we would think that he was only the son of a carpenter, and not the actual Son of God.

The historical record on Joseph Smith’s life shows a man, with flaws, who made mistakes, who committed sin, and who needed the Savior’s atonement. At times he made poor financial and business decisions. He had grand ideas that didn’t always work out. Sometimes he lost his temper. In short, he was a man. But, the historical recorded also shows that Joseph Smith was no huckster nor was he a charlatan. I’ve no question of his moral character. And I’ve no question of his prophetic calling. Inspite of the flaws and mistakes, I see God’s hand guiding a man to bring about wonderful truths and establish, whether you believe in it’s authenticity or not, a church that has grown out of obscurity, despite a myriad of trials and persecustions heeped upon it, and that is now respected worldwide because of the good that it does and the morals that it espouses.

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?

Your questions presupposes a man of questionable moral character. I reject your presuppositions. Knowing what I know about Joseph Smith today, in a sense I have already chosen to follow him as a true prophet of the Most High God, by following the living prophets today who are a continuation of that authority that was restored through Joseph Smith.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[MelanieAnne]

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

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

Finrock, it’s not that I am “convinced”, as that is the description of some sort of subjective opinion; instead, it is that I know the Truth.

Here is my testimony, no doubt a formula you will recognize ~

1. 
   *]I know the Mormon Church is NOT TRUE
   *]I know that Joseph Smith was NOT A PROPHET
   *]I know that the person called the Prophet of the Mormon Church today is NOT A PROPHET OF GOD
   *]I know that the Book of Mormon is NOT THE WORD OF GOD
   
   I trust that’s clear.
   
   I belong to the church (and there is only one church, although there are many sects) founded by Jesus Christ Himself and which still stands today. I am sorry that you, and so many others, have been seduced away from the Truth that is Jesus Christ by Smith, his hoax, and his willing accomplices. WAKE UP to the Truth.

 

[ParkerD]

Bill,
Hello. Replies:

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)

The text of D & C 84:1-6 is as follows:

1 A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high.
2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.
6 And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro;

Evidently, you are questioning two things about these verses. One is whether a temple was built in western Missouri “in this generation.” I look at verse 4 as God commanding those saints to build a temple “beginning at this place”. I think the evidence is clear that they tried to begin such a temple, but could not proceed due to the violent actions of Missourians against them. They built their temple in Nauvoo instead, after they had re-located and had done what was necessary to be ready to build their temple. It was built, and the saints received temple blessings in the Nauvoo Temple.

The other thing you may be questioning is whether the New Jerusalem was ever “built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place.” The early Latter-day Saints thought that they were going to be able to build the New Jerusalem in a fairly short time, but what those verses clearly say is that the “building of the New Jerusalem” (a process) would begin at that point in time, but it does not infer when the process of building the New Jerusalem would be finished. That process is still going on. A New Jerusalem would mean that the whole world was in the Millenium, and we’re not there yet, are we?

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)

Thanks for bringing this up. It led me to find an interesting and informative article about Great Britain’s involvement in the Civil War:
bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A912386

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)

I’ll need to look that one up, which will be interesting for me. Thanks for listing the reference.

 

[GodIsGracious]

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.

Then, why quote them?

What a dense statement.

I quoted someone because I liked what they said. I also think that quote applies to Joseph Smith.

Quoting somene does not mean that I consider them a prophet, nor does it mean I follow them.

BTW, QUIT twisting my words. So far on this forum I have seen the most twisting around of scripture and other forum posters’ words by the mormons who post on this site. You know EXACTLY what I meant and you are trying to discredit what I had to say by sowing doubt.

It only made you sound ignorant.

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.

Frankly, I don’t need YOU to “try” and get me to take another look at my own thinking process. I have far more learned individuals than you to go to.

And objectivity is not your strong suit.

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.

Well, your tries are failing now. And as for the wool pulled over people’s eyes? I would say that was Joseph Smith.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Shame on you Parker.

Your words sound gracious such as (Have a good day) but the feelings you convey mean something else.

Everyone but you understood what God is gracious was saying and I think you really did understand. But your reply to him was dishonest. Twisting his words to mean something he never said nor meant was not nice of you. Since the Mormons are so good at twisting scripture (to their own destruction) I guess it should come as no surprise that they would do the same with statements made by others.

Thank you. I really REALLY appreciated this post. There’s another mormon here that has constantly twisted words of forum posters and I’m glad I’m not the only one seeing this trend.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Shame on you Parker.

Your words sound gracious such as (Have a good day) but the feelings you convey mean something else.

It is passive-aggressiveness. I agree that it is a noticeable pattern in Mormon behavior.

 

[ParkerD]

Shame on you Parker.

Your words sound gracious such as (Have a good day) but the feelings you convey mean something else.

Everyone but you understood what God is gracious was saying and I think you really did understand. But your reply to him was dishonest. Twisting his words to mean something he never said nor meant was not nice of you. Since the Mormons are so good at twisting scripture (to their own destruction) I guess it should come as no surprise that they would do the same with statements made by others.

Ricko,
Sorry to have offended the two of you. The subject here seemed to me to be whether Joseph Smith could possibly have been a modern prophet. I thought the comparison that Gracious made was not “apples to apples”, so I made a comment that would turn the tables, and so you two are offended by that. Sorry. Perhaps if we stick to the subject of the thread, it can be discussed in a respectful way about the differing points of view using the Bible as the basis for the discussion. But whether you do or don’t want to do that, I care not. You’re fine with your beliefs, and I’m fine with my beliefs. The aside had nothing to do with those beliefs. Chow.

 

[Jerusha]

Parker, I am fine with my beliefs, you are fine with yours. I have the right to express my beliefs. You have the right to express yours. God will sift out the truth.

By the way, it is not “chow”. That is a breed of dog with a reputation for aggressivenes.

It is “ciao”, the Italian hello or farewell, for “I am your servant.”

Quite a bit of difference.

Just a post to say I am still around. :coffeeread:

 

[Finrock]

Finrock, it’s not that I am “convinced”, as that is the description of some sort of subjective opinion; instead, it is that I know the Truth.

Here is my testimony, no doubt a formula you will recognize ~

1. 
   *]I know the Mormon Church is NOT TRUE
   *]I know that Joseph Smith was NOT A PROPHET
   *]I know that the person called the Prophet of the Mormon Church today is NOT A PROPHET OF GOD
   *]I know that the Book of Mormon is NOT THE WORD OF GOD
   
   I trust that’s clear.
   
   I belong to the church (and there is only one church, although there are many sects) founded by Jesus Christ Himself and which still stands today. I am sorry that you, and so many others, have been seduced away from the Truth that is Jesus Christ by Smith, his hoax, and his willing accomplices. WAKE UP to the Truth.

1. 
   Who am I to dispute your testimony? I simply am not convinced by it, just as you aren’t convinced by mine. Nonetheless, I still recognize and respect your agency to believe how you wish and I have no desire to put you down for it.
   
   As for me, I’ve no doubt that I am on the right path. My religion and the things it teaches have “…[invided] and [enticed me] to do good…” and it has “…[persuaded] me to believe in Christ…” (Moro. 7:13,16). These are things I know are from God.
   
   Thank you for sharing your heart felt beliefs.
   
   Kind Regards,
   Finrock

 

[majick275]

Who am I to dispute your testimony? I simply am not convinced by it, just as you aren’t convinced by mine. Nonetheless, I still recognize and respect your agency to believe how you wish and I have no desire to put you down for it.

As for me, I’ve no doubt that I am on the right path. My religion and the things it teaches have “…[invided] and [enticed me] to do good…” and it has “…[persuaded] me to believe in Christ…” (Moro. 7:13,16). These are things I know are from God.

Thank you for sharing your heart felt beliefs.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

i testify that joseph smith was womanizing con man and that his teachings are not just in error but influenced by Satan and that those who follow those teachings do so at great peril to their souls. There is only one church that God himself came down to earth in the flesh and founded, that church is the Catholic church. I say this in the nae of jesus christ AMEN!

 

[twopekinguys]

Shame on you Parker.

Your words sound gracious such as (Have a good day) but the feelings you convey mean something else.

Everyone but you understood what God is gracious was saying and I think you really did understand. But your reply to him was dishonest. Twisting his words to mean something he never said nor meant was not nice of you. Since the Mormons are so good at twisting scripture (to their own destruction) I guess it should come as no surprise that they would do the same with statements made by others.

This all goes back to the well know mormon tactic of…Answer the question that “should” have been asked, not the one that 'was" asked.

It amazes me that mormons don’t have more carpal tunnel (repetitive motion syndrome) surgeries than the rest of the population the way they twist things all the time.

 

[ricko]

Look at the evidence.

JS finds the golden plates but no one can actually see them unless they look at them with spiritual eyes. (Something wrong with your regular eyes buddy?)

Mormons jump all over themselves saying that there were witnesses. The so called witnesses were certainly not what you could call objective. Friends and relatives, hardly objective.
Say you really had something of importance. How would you prove its existence? You would get several people who had true objectivity, not friends and relatives. A normal person would present the article to a group of biblical scientists and secular scientists. The article would then be preserved and protected as it would be recognized of extreme importance. This is how it has been done down through the ages. But not Joseph Smith. He not only did not prove the existence of the golden plates but an angel took them away. Now we all have heard the expression “the dog ate it” but the Mormons have come up with a new one “the angel took it”.
My dear Mormons, can you not see how silly that story is? Your faith is misplaced. You have put your faith not in Jesus Christ but a man, Joseph Smith. Yes, you use the name of Jesus but your Jesus is not the Jesus of ancient scripture. Your church teaches a different Christ and a different gospel and scripture has warned us about that.

The above is only one fragment of evidence that proves that Joseph Smith is not a prophet.

Have a good day!

 

[Stouts989]

This article might help…

"But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 "And you may say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ 22 “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him,” (Deut. 18:20-22). emphasis added.

carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/joseph-smiths-false-prophecies

 

[Primox]

It is passive-aggressiveness. I agree that it is a noticeable pattern in Mormon behavior.

You’re generalizing from a limited sample. Labeling all Mormon’s as typifying a certain behaviour is passive-agressive in itself.

This all goes back to the well know mormon tactic

Again, rather than disputing arguments, you’ve stereotyped Mormon’s as behaving a certain way.

Let’s make Truth the aim, and not ad hominem attacks.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You’re generalizing from a limited sample. Labeling all Mormon’s as typifying a certain behaviour is passive-agressive in itself.

It is a dishonest approach on their part. I see no reason to pretend it isn’t there and is not a factor in discussions with them.

 

[ParkerD]

You’re generalizing from a limited sample. Labeling all Mormon’s as typifying a certain behaviour is passive-agressive in itself.

Again, rather than disputing arguments, you’ve stereotyped Mormon’s as behaving a certain way.

Let’s make Truth the aim, and not ad hominem attacks.

Primox,

Thanks for your comment here. Thanks also to Jerusha for pointing out my misspelled word. (I should have looked it up.)

Prophets in the Old Testament were primarily teachers, often of truths already known because they were already written down. One of the things abundantly clear in the Old Testament is that the Jewish teachers were often admonished by the prophets to go back to the basic teachings and promises and covenants of their faith. Christ followed that same pattern as He taught the Jewish people and leaders/teachers among them. Paul also followed that same pattern, as did Peter. It is a clear pattern in the Bible.

 

[Thorwald]

The main biblical rule for ascertaining a true prophet from a false one is that the prophet’s teaching must agree with known revelation, that is, with what was already handed down by God as absolutely essential for belief. (Deuteronomy 13: 1-5 II Timothy 4: 3-5)

What about Numbers 12:6? What about the Word of God that is “lost”…what if God uses a prophet to reveal some of this lost Word? Not all ‘wisdom’ revealed unto the disciples and apostles, was written down. What about God using a prophet to ‘fill in the gaps’?

 

[GodIsGracious]

What about Numbers 12:6? What about the Word of God that is “lost”…what if God uses a prophet to reveal some of this lost Word? Not all ‘wisdom’ revealed unto the disciples and apostles, was written down. What about God using a prophet to ‘fill in the gaps’?

You just mentioned Oral Tradition in the Catholic church.

God gave His word. Gave. Past tense. It was already given to us. That means it has already been revealed to us through Jesus Christ our Lord. No more need be revealed.

And by the way, Numbers is in the Old Testament. I’m looking here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P3Q.HTM

And I don’t see where Numbers 12:6 would mean that there would be other prophets after Jesus Christ.

At any rate, I’d rather trust what Jesus Christ warned us about, false prophets that will come in His name, so I stay away from anyone like Smith, or Hubbard, and especially folks like Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda.

I just don’t understand why someone would follow someone else knowing that Jesus warned us of false prophets. If someone wants more spiritual reading, there are the saints who have written VOLUMES available at our disposal. NO ONE could read all of the saints works’ in a lifetime. They lead lives for us to admire. It’s ok to see someone who leads a very spiritual and faithful life and admire that, but to follow someone else other than Christ? I don’t get that. I just don’t.