Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[Finrock]

Greetings Primox!

Shall we just agree to love one another? :grouphug:

Indeed.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Stouts989]

This false understanding of Catholic belief has been discussed many times on this forum. Feel free to browse previous threads to understand Catholic belief.

catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

"“Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).” "

I’ve read that very article…and they don’t have a cue what the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is all about.

This link should help clarify it…

gotquestions.org/perseverance-saints.html

In short we believe that we are “once saved always saved”…because it is God by His Grace that is keeping us saved (protected) due to our saving relationship with Him. Everyone who is truly saved will preserve to the end because of what God is doing in us…not what we are doing for God.

Please take time to read the article.

John 6:65
"For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.:

earlier Jesus says this…

John 6:39-40
“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up on the last day.”

It’s a promise from God that he will not lose one that He calls to Him…does God break His promises?

but this is off topic…we digress…

 

[Stouts989]

Why should I learn what reform doctrine teaches when I have The Truth in the Catholic Church? Believe all the heresy you want, doesn’t make it true.

Good day!

How do you know its heresy if you have know idea what it believes?

gotquestions.org/perseverance-saints.html

 

[Jerusha]

A’right, a’right, this is an exercise in futility. Shall we just agree to love one another? :grouphug:

You are right. Attempting two-way conversations with Mormons is an exercise in futility. And group hugs are fine, but beware of backstabbers.

 

[GodIsGracious]

How do you know its heresy if you have know idea what it believes?

gotquestions.org/perseverance-saints.html

You COMPLETELY missed the point.

I have The Truth. I have the Truth in the Catholic Church. I don’t have to go to your sites to learn the truth. You mentioned “reformation doctrine.” The reformers left the Catholic Church. That and the fact that you have listed as a reference another anti-Catholic website previously. That is a clue to me that you are willing to believe anti-Catholic claims and so I will not take anti-Catholic claims as a truth.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Haha oh my goodness. So much for the defence others have given in your stead about not overgeneralizing. I am man, but I will not speak for all men. I am a protestant, but I will not speak for all protestants. I am a Christian, but I will not speak for all of those who walk in Christ. You were a Mormon, but you speak for all Mormons? It’s called the confirmation bias when you look to places which confirm your inferences. But you haven’t, nor can you, look to all of those who don’t behave in the way you expect them to. It wouldn’t be hard for me to find 100 or more sources that suggest some terrible behaviour that is aggregated among blacks or women or homosexuals, but I am not in a position to make judgement calls on a limited sample (truthfully), and I am not in a position to make judgement calls on any person or group (as God has dictated we oughtn’t). I am telling you this, because I recognize stereotyping is taking place - you may make the choice to refute it and you may continue making blanket statments - but to what avail is it to you? to Catholics? to Mormons? I posit - absolutely nothing. I have a good idea about what you’re doing, and so do you, so let’s not argue about semantics or what constitutes this or that. If you think you’re saying the right things, by all means continue. But if you see otherwise, please don’t. That’s all. All respect intended.

I never said I speak for all mormons. I speak of and about my own experience. Others here speak to theirs and amazingly, we are saying we have the same experience. You seem to have a need to invalidate our experiences. Why is that?

 

[Religio71]

Joseph Smith also stated:

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam… Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of The Church 6:408–409.

 

[Religio71]

I never said I speak for all mormons. I speak of and about my own experience. Others here speak to theirs and amazingly, we are saying we have the same experience. You seem to have a need to invalidate our experiences. Why is that?

It’s ok, primox hasn’t added anything to this discussion except that we should all hug

 

[pickguard1]

Pickguard,
I actually dislike the term “apostasy” because it carries with it so many connotations that are usually negative. But I do think the Jewish religion had often strayed from what was revealed to Moses, so I think it was an applicable comparison I made.

The church Christ established could stray from its roots and yet the work of Christ (the salvation of souls in this world) could continue. The gates of hell will never prevail against the work of Christ. The work of Christ prevails in the end, always and forever.

I think “upon this rock” means something different than what you think it means, but there is no way I would be able to persuade you otherwise.

As to your last sentence, I am not looking for “fulfillment” in my life through a religion as an organization. I look for truth, truth that satisfies my soul, that when I drink of its water, I never thirst because it is quenching to the yearnings in my soul. I absolutely know the truth of the words of Isaiah,

55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

My covenant is with Christ. His truth is what I know and what I love.

Parker, you seem to be fond of quoting scripture, and yet you so easily cast aside the very words of Christ when they don’t suit your personal interpretation of scripture. He didn’t say, “upon this Rock I will build my works and the gates of Hell shall not prevail agianst them.” He said Church. The gates of hell will not prevail against His CHURCH. His Church therefore can NEVER stray - it is of God, not of man. Individual men didn’t create it, nor can they defile it. They can leave it. They can misunderstand it. They can misinterpret it. They can misuse their authority to scandalize those who are believers and those who are not yet believers alike - but the Church always remains the same - faithful to Christ and His teachings.

As for whether our understanding of “upon this rock” means, I believe what has always been taught by the same church that was established upon that rock. I have no idea what you believe it to mean.

I don’t look for fulfillment through religion *per se *either. It is fruitless to follow a religion for religion’s sake, or to be able to claim a certain “religiosity.” However, that is entirely different than seeking spiritual fulfillment outside of the ONE TRUE religion God has given us for that specific purpose. Your claim to seek the Truth is admirable, but you can’t in good conscience claim to do so if you cast aside so easily the very words of Christ, and the Church he founded.

 

[ricko]

How do you know its heresy if you have know idea what it believes?

gotquestions.org/perseverance-saints.html

The topic OSAS has been debated many times. If you do not feel like doing a search then you may start a new thread and it will be explained to you why your link is misunderstanding what the bible really says.
Peace

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Religio71! How’s your day been?

I wanted to thank you, by the way, for generally posting informative information about LDS beliefs and doctrines.

It’s ok, primox hasn’t added anything to this discussion except that we should all hug

Looking back at what Primox actually wrote, he didn’t say that we should all hug. What he did say was that we should love one another. He was using the group hug as a symbol of loving one another. I can’t think of better counsel to receive and to accept than the counsel of the Master:

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:34-35).

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Primox]

I never said I speak for all mormons. I speak of and about my own experience. Others here speak to theirs and amazingly, we are saying we have the same experience. You seem to have a need to invalidate our experiences. Why is that?

Enough is as good as a feast, Rebecca!

A’right, a’right, this is an exercise in futility. Shall we just agree to love one another? :grouphug:

Hmmm???

 

[Primox]

It’s ok, primox hasn’t added anything to this discussion except that we should all hug

I’ve added that we shouldn’t stereotype, but the comment wasn’t well received. Therefore, since we cannot agree on what stereotyping is, I’ve suggested we agree on something else. That’s fair, isn’t it?

 

[ParkerD]

Pickguard,
I suppose that I should clarify about the whole passage in Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 ¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Peter didn’t understand Christ’s mission at this time (v. 23), yet he had testified that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God (v. 16). Christ said that Father in Heaven had revealed to Peter the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ.

What was the sure foundation stone of which Isaiah prophesied?

Isaiah 28:16 ¶ Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Isaiah 8:13 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall…

Peter quoted Isaiah and also a Psalm, saying

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Here is the Psalm quoted by Peter in verse 6:

Psalm 118:21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation.
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.

So what is the stone or rock or foundation referred to by Christ in Matthew 16? It is the knowledge of the gospel of Salvation through Jesus Christ, and the knowledge that Jesus is the very Christ whom the Jewish leaders had rejected. It is the revealed knowledge brought down to earth from Father in Heaven. That is a sure foundation, unshakeable, not relying on “things of men” but relying on “things of God.” (Matthew 16:23)

 

[pickguard1]

Pickguard,
I suppose that I should clarify about the whole passage in Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 ¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Peter didn’t understand Christ’s mission at this time (v. 23), yet he had testified that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God (v. 16). Christ said that Father in Heaven had revealed to Peter the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ.

What was the sure foundation stone of which Isaiah prophesied?

Isaiah 28:16 ¶ Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Isaiah 8:13 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall…

Peter quoted Isaiah and also a Psalm, saying

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Here is the Psalm quoted by Peter in verse 6:

Psalm 118:21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation.
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.

So what is the stone or rock or foundation referred to by Christ in Matthew 16? It is the knowledge of the gospel of Salvation through Jesus Christ, and the knowledge that Jesus is the very Christ whom the Jewish leaders had rejected. It is the revealed knowledge brought down to earth from Father in Heaven. That is a sure foundation, unshakeable, not relying on “things of men” but relying on “things of God.” (Matthew 16:23)

NO. The “rock” is Peter himself. Christ changed Simon’s name to “Rock.” “Cephas” in Aramaic, “Petrus” in Latin. The plain implication of the text is that Christ is saying "Blessed are you Simon bar Jona…etc…And I say that you are “Rock” and upon this “Rock” I will build my church. What other reason to change Simon’s name? The simplest explanation is the hardest, because it requires the shedding of the scales from the eyes and admitting the Truth - a hard thing indeed sometimes, but the Truth doesn’t change no matter how hard one tries to change it; it simply waits for you to accept it, as I hope you will do.

 

[ricko]

I’ve added that we shouldn’t stereotype, but the comment wasn’t well received. Therefore, since we cannot agree on what stereotyping is, I’ve suggested we agree on something else. That’s fair, isn’t it?

If you want to be fair then drop the subject and get involved in the topic of the thread…
PLEASE!

 

[pickguard1]

Also Parker,

The references from the Isaiah, and Christ Himself referencing Isaiah, as well as in the epistles about Christ being the stone which the builders rejected, which becomes the head of the corner (cornerstone) refers to the acceptance of Christ as God. Yes He is the foundation of the Church, He is the Head. But nonetheless, he was not to remain in human form on earth - and established His Church upon Peter and His apostles, giving to Peter the Keys, the power to bind and loose.

It is plain that Mormons accept some form of continued apostlicity (you have “apostles”) Why so reticent to accept that Christ gave to His apostles the authority to decide things on earth according to His will, and to guide humanity towards the Truth? Why believe in humanly appointed “apostles” rather than those ordained by those who were ordained by God himself?

 

[Primox]

If you want to be fair then drop the subject and get involved in the topic of the thread…
PLEASE!

My idea of fairness is people not being stereotyped (despite their beliefs), not me dropping the subject. If I’ve said something offensive, let me know, but don’t censor me because you don’t want to hear that I think people should be kinder.

 

[ParkerD]

Also Parker,

The references from the Isaiah, and Christ Himself referencing Isaiah, as well as in the epistles about Christ being the stone which the builders rejected, which becomes the head of the corner (cornerstone) refers to the acceptance of Christ as God. Yes He is the foundation of the Church, He is the Head. But nonetheless, he was not to remain in human form on earth - and established His Church upon Peter and His apostles, giving to Peter the Keys, the power to bind and loose.

It is plain that Mormons accept some form of continued apostlicity (you have “apostles”) Why so reticent to accept that Christ gave to His apostles the authority to decide things on earth according to His will, and to guide humanity towards the Truth? Why believe in humanly appointed “apostles” rather than those ordained by those who were ordained by God himself?

Pickguard,
Thanks for clarifying your beliefs about Christ being the foundation of the Church, the Head. I do accept that Peter had the Keys, the power to bind and loose.

If the original twelve apostles were still living on the earth today, I suppose that there would not have been a need for a restoration of ordained authority. But I’m OK with how things have turned out because I can see the good that comes from a variety of religious beliefs among people who use the Bible. I can see the good that comes from the Catholic church, for example. I can see the good that has come from many Papal teachings.

I am not aware that the office of “apostle” continued beyond the lifetimes of John and Paul in the original church Christ had established. I suppose that the twelve would have wanted to ordain new apostles just as Matthias was ordained to replace Judas, but it doesn’t seem evident that they were able to continue doing that beyond the time of Paul.

 

[pickguard1]

I am not aware that the office of “apostle” continued beyond the lifetimes of John and Paul in the original church Christ had established. I suppose that the twelve would have wanted to ordain new apostles just as Matthias was ordained to replace Judas, but it doesn’t seem evident that they were able to continue doing that beyond the time of Paul.

This is what Catholics term “Apostolic Succession.” The practice of laying on of hands to transmit priestly power and authority is in the Bible. (1 Timothy 4:14 14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.)This is how the Apostles were able to keep the Church going longer than their lifetimes, which, had it only lasted through the first century, would have made Christianity as much of a sham as any of the current pagan religions of the day. Christ didn’t establish a one-generational church, it is the Church for all time. Therefore, the authority and ability to confect the sacraments He gave to His Apostles, was also transmitted by them to successors, who had the authority and power to transmit it to their successors, and so on. The bishops of the Catholic Church, as well as of the Eastern Orthodox churches, possess this Apostolic Succession.