Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[MelanieAnne]

This is slightly off thread (maybe not), but in my discussions with my LDS brothers and sisters, the topic of ‘The Great Apostasy’ always comes up. Being a member of the original Christian church, I have always wanted to know what it the Church taught that was the apostasy that kick separated us from Christ.

What was it?

Much of my wifes family is LDS and I always have wanted to ask, but family being family, I didn’t was to say something to accidentally give offense. This is a safe place. .

There was no “Great Apostasy”. It is a construct erected to support the Mormon idea of “restoration”. There is no factual basis for the stories ~ and if you ask this question to Mormons often enough you will generally find

• as many different versions of the story as there are answers to your question
• very little in the form of facts and a lot of vague suppositions
• the average Mormon gives very little thought to this subject and simply accepts what they have been told as true

There was NO “Great Apostasy”. Having said that, I wouldn’t bring it up at a family dinner.

 

[twopekinguys]

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.

Look at many of the threads here, and you will see this pattern. It is not “stereotyping”, when it is a common behavior demonstrated repeatedly by the same group. It becomes a tactic.

 

[pickguard1]

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…

Matthew 16: 17-18
"17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

Christ didn’t say “and upon this rock I will redifine the existing church”

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. .

Perhaps you forget that the Church came before the Bible - without the Church, the Bible would not have existed. It is the Church that “defined” what the Bible is in the first place (taking the existing Judaic writings already established, and defining what is to be considered the New Testament). It is only logical that it has the authority and ability to determine the parameters of what it says and does not say, since it could have (and did), from the very beginning, decided to throw out anything that disagreed with what Christ taught. How could they do such a thing in good conscience? Because they had the Truth, and the authority and responsibility to pass on (traditio/tradere) that Truth.

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
.

It is good that you care what Christ thinks of you. However, Christ gave us the wonderful gift of His Church (which gave us the Bible, along with-but not before Tradition) so that we can do exactly that. Abandoning the tools that Christ gave us to find Him, and relying on one’s self is like putting on a blindfold while walking along the edge fo a cliff.

 

[ParkerD]

Dear Parker,

First, I have read many of your contributions on these boards and I thank you for sharing your perspectives with us.

As a Catholic, I could not help but to suggest that your contibution concerning " leaders and teachers who strayed " " doctrines that have changed over time " " disagreements within Churches " is EXACTLY what I think of when I evaluate the 190 year history of the LDS Church. No disrespect intended, as a Catholic, I simply found your offering puzzling at best.

Peace,
CJ

CJNick,
I can see why you might be puzzled. I didn’t add that there continues to be both the potential for individual and collective apostasies, and the actual fact that those do happen. What are the safeguards God implemented to keep the covenants and ordinances pure?

(1) The Bible–one standard of measurement, but standing alone insufficient as the only standard of measurement because words mean different things to different people.
(2) Twelve apostles called by priesthood authority–checks and balances in place by having twelve men with individual perspectives but a common purpose: to keep the doctrine pure and to spread the gospel of Salvation throughout the world.
(3) The Spirit giving personal revelation–available to confirm true doctrine by bearing witness to the heart of each person as they hear the word of the Lord and as they live by the doctrine they are taught.
(4) Leaders and teachers called by priesthood authority at every level of church organization with checks and balances in place to discern when people are being led astray. Any one leader does not act within their stewardship without a check and balance of someone else who oversees what they do or what they teach.

But, yes indeed, apostasy can happen within any church, and does happen. Being human brings us that possibility.

 

[Primox]

Primox, you’re new, so with all due respect, Rebecca has a LOT of experience in discussions with Mormons and she knows what she is talking about. Rather than counsel her, perhaps you should check the archives. There may be an overgeneralization here, but it’s not being made by Rebecca.

I would like to add that there people other than Rebecca who notice the same thing, so it’s not like Rebecca is pulling this “overgeneralization” out of her hat.

Look at many of the threads here, and you will see this pattern. It is not “stereotyping”, when it is a common behavior demonstrated repeatedly by the same group. It becomes a tactic.

It doesn’t matter how familiar I am with these boards. I’m not saying Rebecca is the only one, I just happened to notice it. It’s overgeneralization and it’s selective sampling. You ought to feel no more entitled saying “I notice that Mormons” whatever, than I “I noticed that black people / Mexicans / Homosexuals / Women” whatever. It’s neither fair to stereotype behaviour, nor is it conducive to sheding light on what is misunderstood. My post count really has nothing to do with the statements your condoning. Please consider this.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It doesn’t matter how familiar I am with these boards. I’m not saying Rebecca is the only one, I just happened to notice it. It’s overgeneralization and it’s selective sampling. You ought to feel no more entitled saying “I notice that Mormons” whatever, than I “I noticed that black people / Mexicans / Homosexuals / Women” whatever. It’s neither fair to stereotype behaviour, nor is it conducive to sheding light on what is misunderstood. My post count really has nothing to do with the statements your condoning. Please consider this.

Identifying that someone is behaving in a certain way and noting that many others sharing a similar characteristic also behave in the same way is not an overgeneralization. It is reporting a recurring observation. No one has said “ALL Mormons do XXXX” which WOULD be an overgeneralization. Many have reported certain behaviors commonly occur. That’s just a fact, on that has been observed repeatedly. It is an observation that may be limited to the forum in which the behavior has been observed, but it is a fact nevertheless.

In the case of Rebecca, she has observed common behavior patterns among Mormons both here on the forum as well as in other areas in her life. No doubt many others could report the same sort of experience. The fact that you may not have had the same sort of experience (yet) does not negate the experiences of others.

I submit that the overgeneralization is yours, with all due respect.

 

[pickguard1]

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 are correct that not all wisdom revealed unto the disciples and apostles was written down - but prophets aren’t necessary to fill in the gaps. Christ gave us His Church to do that. Even John said at the end of his Gospel that all the works of Christ couldn’t be put down in all the books of the world (paraphrasing). But Christ did give the Spirit of Truth to the Apostles, and by extension the Church.

 

[pickguard1]

You make an excellent point. While it is my undertanding that Catholics view the Pope as Christ’s vicar on earth, I wouldn’t say he was a prophet, though.

You are correct that the Pope isn’t a prophet, nor has any pope ever been. They are the head of the Church on earth “Vicar of Christ”, which is to say that they represent Christ. This of course isn’t to say they are perfect men, but they are the Custodians of the Truth already revealed, and when they discuss those things already revealed, they are perfect (infallible). But they in no way invent or claim to preach anything new with regard to revelation and salvation. They just pass on what was given them by the Apostles.

 

[GodIsGracious]

1. I see myself as more “seeking for truth” than as “trying to avoid error.” (And yes, I see those as very different activities).

Good distinction, but since I have the Truth (capital “T” ) in the Catholic Church, I only need but look to my faith and understand it.

And what did you mean by “trying to avoid error?” Where are you getting that from?

 

[Primox]

Identifying that someone is behaving in a certain way and noting that many others sharing a similar characteristic also behave in the same way is not an overgeneralization. It is reporting a recurring observation. No one has said “ALL Mormons do XXXX” which WOULD be an overgeneralization. Many have reported certain behaviors commonly occur. That’s just a fact, on that has been observed repeatedly. It is an observation that may be limited to the forum in which the behavior has been observed, but it is a fact nevertheless.

In the case of Rebecca, she has observed common behavior patterns among Mormons both here on the forum as well as in other areas in her life. No doubt many others could report the same sort of experience. The fact that you may not have had the same sort of experience (yet) does not negate the experiences of others.

I submit that the overgeneralization is yours, with all due respect.

I could explain to you better what overgeneralization is, but it doesn’t seem as if you’ll receive it. Don’t mind me, then. If you think saying such things are helpful, continue saying them. Never fail to plug the point as frequently as possible, if you think it’s helpful. Honestly now.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I could explain to you better what overgeneralization is, but it doesn’t seem as if you’ll recieve it. Don’t mind me, then. If you think saying such things are helpful, continue saying them. Never fail to plug the point as frequently as possible, if you think it’s helpful. Honestly now.

How very Christian of you. At least I can spell.

CLICK. Have a nice life.

 

[Primox]

How very Christian of you. At least I can spell.

CLICK. Have a nice life.

:ehh:

 

[CJ_Nick]

Anyone care for a glass of cold water ???

 

[GodIsGracious]

I missed this.

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.

Just because you disagree with something does not make it false. And as for your last sentence here, then you have just stated that we should all convert to Judaism.

This is why I say that “Personal Revelations does not a religion make!” I will give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt that he did have some sort of personal revelation. Whether it was God inspired or iInspired by Satan is not for me to judge, but I can determine whether it is something worth listening.

There are other revelations within the Catholic church that are accepted as miracles, but belief in them * are not required for one’s salvation.*

I don’t doubt that Smith was a fallible human being and that he may have repented. That’s all well and good. But that doesn’t mean that I have to follow him.

And really, why DO you follow a mere fallible, sinful, human being? Why are you following his teachings? Me, I’m following God. I am following Jesus Christ. Everything the Catholic Church does is to bring one’s soul in communion with Jesus Christ. There’s NO WAY I’d follow a human being, a sinner, who would lead me away from Him.

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.

It’s understandable that it can be maddening to find that what one has held to be true all their life to actually be false. THAT is human nature: to want to cling to what they believe is true. I’m sure you can say the same for me. That’s fine. But if you were to acknowledge that the Catholic church is The Church that Christ founded it would blow away your first paragraph above.

And as to define “Christian,” infact, yes. We do. You don’t like that idea because to accept that idea would, again, negate your first paragraph above.

Pickguard has answered you rather well and so I will repeat what he (she?) had to say:

Perhaps you forget that the Church came before the Bible - without the Church, the Bible would not have existed. It is the Church that “defined” what the Bible is in the first place (taking the existing Judaic writings already established, and defining what is to be considered the New Testament). It is only logical that it has the authority and ability to determine the parameters of what it says and does not say, since it could have (and did), from the very beginning, decided to throw out anything that disagreed with what Christ taught. How could they do such a thing in good conscience? Because they had the Truth, and the authority and responsibility to pass on (traditio/tradere) that Truth.

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.

Well, I’m glad you’re worried about what Christ thinks of you. To say that you don’t care what I or others think of you, well… that’s fine. I actually find your last statement, professing to know what Chris would be “into” is rather prideful.

 

[twopekinguys]

Identifying that someone is behaving in a certain way and noting that many others sharing a similar characteristic also behave in the same way is not an overgeneralization. It is reporting a recurring observation. No one has said “ALL Mormons do XXXX” which WOULD be an overgeneralization. Many have reported certain behaviors commonly occur. That’s just a fact, on that has been observed repeatedly. It is an observation that may be limited to the forum in which the behavior has been observed, but it is a fact nevertheless.

In the case of Rebecca, she has observed common behavior patterns among Mormons both here on the forum as well as in other areas in her life. No doubt many others could report the same sort of experience. The fact that you may not have had the same sort of experience (yet) does not negate the experiences of others.

I submit that the overgeneralization is yours, with all due respect.

Exactly!!

 

[pickguard1]

But just as in Old Testament times, the people strayed faster than the leaders could keep them settled in the pure gospel. As time went on, the leaders and teachers strayed also, so the doctrines of the pure gospel have changed over time and now there are all of the disagreements we find among churches who all follow Biblical teachings but don’t agree on those teachings.

People straying from the Truth does not equal the Church straying form the Truth, which cannot happen, and hasn’t happened. If it were impossible for people to stray from the Truth, there would be no free will. God doesn’t deny us our free will, because he calls us to love Him, which can’t be done without free will.

However, it seems like spiritual suicide to stray from God’s Church simply because other people have strayed from God’s Church. Kind of like blinding one’s self to be led by the blind.

 

[pickguard1]

There are other revelations within the Catholic church that are accepted as miracles, but belief in them * are not required for one’s salvation.*

A further point on Catholic miracles, such as Lourdes and Fatima, is that for them to have been considered True miracles, the doctrine they taught, if any was taught, had to be the same as has always been taught. If there is new doctrine, it can automatically be thrown out as either A) from Satan, or B) a fraud/hoax, or C)both So, that is why it IS OK to believe in those miracles, because you’re essentially re-confirming your existing beliefs.

Pickguard has answered you rather well and so I will repeat what he (she?) had to say:

I am, due to my X and Y chromosomes, (as well as the design of God), a guy, and my wife is the happier for it

 

[Sunstone]

Good distinction, but since I have the Truth (capital “T” ) in the Catholic Church, I only need but look to my faith and understand it.

And what did you mean by “trying to avoid error?” Where are you getting that from?

As far as I know, the distinction goes back to the pre-Socratics, but I had in mind William James’ famous “The Will To Believe” essay.

You can find it here: falcon.jmu.edu/~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html

 

[GodIsGracious]

A further point on Catholic miracles, such as Lourdes and Fatima, is that for them to have been considered True miracles, the doctrine they taught, if any was taught, had to be the same as has always been taught. If there is new doctrine, it can automatically be thrown out as either A) from Satan, or B) a fraud/hoax, or C)both So, that is why it IS OK to believe in those miracles, because you’re essentially re-confirming your existing beliefs.

Yep! Exactly!

My point was, and I’m sure you would agree, is that if we don’t believe in those miracles it does not mean we are damned.

I am, due to my X and Y chromosomes, (as well as the design of God), a guy, and my wife is the happier for it

LOL! I have been mistaken for the wrong gender. I’m considering putting it in my signature. (My chromosomes are XX )

 

[CJ_Nick]

I am, due to my X and Y chromosomes, (as well as the design of God), a guy, and my wife is the happier for it

Thanks for that pickguard !!! hehehehehehehe!!!

Peace,
CJ