Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[CHRISTINE77]

Fifth as for the “pre-mortal” life - there is none. The reference in the Jeremiah 1:5 " Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations." refers directly to Jeremiah himself. God knows ALL things, and knows about all creation even before he creates it. It doesn’t follow that because He knew any individual before he formed him in the womb that he formed him outisde the womb before hand. There is nothing in scripture or any Christian teaching that supports this idea. The soul is created and infused at the moment of conception .

What does this mean in Tobit 6:18, when Raphael tells Tobias to marry Sarah?

“But do not be afraid, for she was set apart for you before the world existed. You will save her, and she will go with you. And I suppose that you will have children by her, who will take the place of brothers for you. So do not worry.” When Tobiah heard Raphael say that she was his kinswoman, of his own family’s lineage, he fell deeply in love with her, and his heart became set on her.

 

[ParkerD]

I’ll forego all the special quote stuff here, since it would take up too much space.
Quote by ParkerDPickguard,
responses:

Quote: pickguard1:
Is Mormonism a completely relativist religion?

Parker D:We believe every person will receive according to their individual works and individual desires.

This doesn’t answer the question. Relativism regarding religion applies to whether or not you believe there is an objective and definable truth, and that following the truth is an objective necessity for salvation.

I don’t use the term relativism at all, but I do believe that following a fulness of truth is an objective necessity for exaltation, and following the truth of believing in Christ and confessing Christ and asking for His grace are necessary for Him to provide that grace to be rescued from our fallen natures and from the pains of Hell, but He will not provide “more grace” than the person asks for and lives for. Again, every person will get what they live for and what they deep-down desire. I believe there is more truth in the universe that we don’t know than there is truth that we do now know. I don’t know how else to answer your question.

 

[CJ_Nick]

CJ Nick,
I’ve posted comments about that last sentence several times on other threads. Joseph Smith said God the Father was once a man just like Jesus Christ was once a man, and I take that to mean that both have always been perfectly perfect.

Thanks for the reply Parker.

I, with great respect, disagree with your contribution of what you say JS taught.

JS taught from the pulpit- QUOTE:

" God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man "

" I am going to tell you that the God we have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see"

" God was once a man like us, God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an Earth before he became God of our Earth"

Joseph Smith, clearly IMHO, goes on to teach that Mormons can also become God’s of their own Earths.

Peace,
CJ

 

[GodIsGracious]

So.

I went to the LDS website and found this article on “The Great Apostasy.” (Man, Mormon literature makes for some amusing reading. But I digress.)

Straight from this link:

mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/the-restoration-of-truth/the-great-apostasy

After centuries of spiritual darkness, a restoration of truth was needed. Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored on the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith. God has promised it will never be taken from His children again.

(red emphasis mine)

Check that out. So! There are several things here. Because of the use of the word “again,” they’re saying that God is having to make the same promise again. Essentially they’re saying that God breaks promises, or makes promises he won’t keep. Because why would he have to promise again, if he kept his promises the FIRST TIME? Don’t make sense to me!

But from the Bible, we have this:

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18 **And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, **and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
ref: Mat 16:17-19

Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.** And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." **

ref: Mat 28:18-20

So we have Christ creating his church on Peter, the rock, our foundation, given him the keys, promises to be with them, and then when he dies, according to Mormons, Christ goes away. poof Breaking his promise to be with us until the end of the age.

They are essentially saying God broke his promise. That’s some crazy stuff.

They use 2 Thes 2:1-3 to justify their supposed “great apostasy,” (it’s linked on their site.) Here is a link to Thessalonians 2 from the Vatican site:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P10W.HTM

Could someone CATHOLIC tell me how this shows a great apostasy? I already know Mormons are going to try and rationalize what’s I certainly don’t see.

 

[ParkerD]

Quote: pickguard1
If you believe that Christ’s “original” teaching was perverted *(I don’t use that word, ever)-ParkerD * and suppressed by the Church (and it would have to be the Catholic Church that did this, since it was the ONLY form of Christianity until the Tenth Century (arguably the 16th century - if you consider the Orthodox to have retained just about everything), then it follows that you must believe that what we consider to be the fruits of following that perverted doctrine can’t be good fruits, because they wouldn’t be based on anything that was revealed by God!

Parker D: The whole of the teaching wasn’t suppressed and changed. Wycliffe and Tyndale had a hard time getting the Bible published in English, so I agree there was suppression. I think the Catholic church has come a long way since the Second Century through the 16th Century. I think the use of the Bible has improved, and I have to assume that God is pleased with that improvement. Of course the Catholic church is based on many things that have been revealed by God.

Wycliff and Tyndale’s bibles were suppressed for the same reason you accuse the Catholic Church/Early Christians in one of the following paragraphs - they were not interpreting it according to tradition, but to their own tastes. Without the Authority of Christ’s Church (binding and loosing) how else is the Bible preserved? This is not suppression, but faithfulness.

I disagree. I think it was suppression, and I think Wycliff and Tyndale did a marvelous and wonderful and supremely difficult work that I will admire forever. I disagree that “binding and loosing” had to do with the authority of your church to suppress the Bible’s translation and printing.

 

[ParkerD]

So.

So we have Christ creating his church on Peter, the rock, our foundation, given him the keys, promises to be with them, and then when he dies, according to Mormons, Christ goes away. poof Breaking his promise to be with use until the end of the age.

Peter isn’t the rock. Christ is the rock, the sure foundation stone, the stone the builders rejected. Peter said that himself. He didn’t call himself the rock. He called Christ the cornerstone. I’ve already quoted the Biblical texts about this.

Christ didn’t break any promise, of course. Never has, never will.

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks for the reply Parker.

I, with great respect, disagree with your contribution of what you say JS taught.

JS taught from the pulpit- QUOTE:

" God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man "

" I am going to tell you that the God we have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see"

" God was once a man like us, God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an Earth before he became God of our Earth"

Joseph Smith, clearly IMHO, goes on to teach that Mormons can also become God’s of their own Earths.

Peace,
CJ

CJ,
I am going to copy a thread entry I have previously made, in an entry I will post shortly to answer what you have written here.

 

[ParkerD]

CJ,
To all readers:

I apologize to others who may follow other threads, that this will be redundant, but here goes:

I don’t think of God the Father as a “perfected man.” I think He was always perfect, but did indeed live on an earth and became a resurrected Being. The following quote is from the transcript of a talk given by Joseph Smith at a funeral in 1844, called the King Follett Discourse:

"God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible.

I wish I had the trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, “As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power.” To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious–in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again."
…
“Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves–to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done–by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”
…
“How consoling to the mourner when he is called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that although the earthly tabernacle shall be dissolved that dear one shall rise in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more but shall be God’s heirs and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? It is to inherit the same glory, the same power, and the same exaltation until you ascend the throne of eternal power the same as those who are gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before.”
…
“We say that God himself is a self-existing God. Who told you so? It is correct enough, but how did it get into your heads?”
…
"The mind of man is as immortal as God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their friends and relatives are separated from their bodies for only a short season; their spirits existed coequal (i.e. coeternal, because they always existed) with God, and they now exist in a place where they converse together, the same as we do on the earth. Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal and yet has a beginning? Because if a spirit has a beginning, it will have an end. That is good logic. I want to reason further on the spirit of man, for I am dwelling on the spirit and body of man–on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the immortal spirit, because it has no beginning. Suppose I cut it in two; as the Lord lives, because it has a beginning, it would have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation who say that man had a beginning prove that he must have an end. If that were so, the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. Moreover, all the spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible to enlargement.

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself–that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory necessary…"

 

[ParkerD]

CJ,
Further to your questions, here is a response previously to Religio71:

Religio71,
Here are responses to your questions. Thanks for asking.

Quote:
ParkerD,
Thanks for the response.

What is the difference between Prophet Joseph Smith saying that God the Father is an exalted man, and a “perfected man”?

The adjective and noun “perfected man” would seem to imply a man who became perfect after having been less than perfect. “Exalted man” would mean “one who was a male mortal who became exalted and immortal”. It could also mean One such as Jesus Christ who came to earth after having been in an exalted station as God the Son and who returned to the station of being exalted, after living a mortal life.

Quote:
Your quotes from the King Follett Discourse seem to beg many questions. For example-“Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves–to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done–by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” This seems to mean that we have to learn to be as God the Father is, and that through exaltation, we will be sitting in glory with everlasting power, just like God the Father.

The words kings and priests to God have a particular meaning that conveys that God the Father will always be the Supreme Ruler of the universe, though being exalted means having omnipotence because that is what exalted means–in other words (the words of the Apostle John) “he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; …even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star.” (Rev. 2:26-28)

Quote:
What does it mean that the Father lived on an earth and became a resurrected Being? Now I know that this is probably more than any Prophet has speculated on. What I mean is, Smith taught that God the Father lived on an earth, and by saying that Jesus Christ did everything the Father did, this means that there was a God before God the Father. Is there evidence that this is a restored belief?

Joseph Smith said that God the Father was a self-existent Being. He wanted other intelligences to be able to advance as He had advanced, so He devoted Himself to bringing a plan into effect to accomplish that, through His perfect Son, Jesus Christ. As far as I am concerned, God the Father resurrected Himself through knowing the laws that pertain to resurrection, after He had lived in a mortality, the same as Jesus Christ did, who resurrected Himself through the power of the Father as well as His own knowledge of how to implement that power. I don’t think we have enough knowledge from what Joseph Smith is quoted as saying, to understand whether God the Father had a Father in Heaven in the same way that Jesus had a Father in Heaven. If so, it was in another prior universe. I don’t think there is evidence to my knowledge anyway, that there was a belief about this that could now be considered a “restored belief”, but certainly joint heirship with Jesus Christ is a restored belief, right from the book of Revelation.

Quote:
I can understand though that you believe that even if God the Father lived on an earth, He was still always God, if we are using Jesus as the model of that. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ was and is always God, and when he was on earth, he was fully God and fully man. So in your belief, this could apply to God the Father. There doesn’t seem to be any ancient precedent to this belief however. And it seems that Smith was implying that God the Father was not always God with this statement:

“We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another.”

I agree that I know of no ancient precedent for God the Father’s progression multi-eons of time ago in the past eternities. I think the implication from the King Follett Sermon and the Lectures on Faith is that there was a prior universe and that our universe is where God the Father is the Supreme Ruler from all eternity to all eternity, and where Jesus is the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega, the Firstborn of the Father and He who will be the Commander of all the righteous during the final winding up scenes of this earth after the soon-to-come Millenium.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Peter isn’t the rock. Christ is the rock, the sure foundation stone, the stone the builders rejected. Peter said that himself. He didn’t call himself the rock. He called Christ the cornerstone. I’ve already quoted the Biblical texts about this.

Christ didn’t break any promise, of course. Never has, never will.

I love how you CONVENIENTLY left off what I quoted. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, but unless I’m misinterpreting, or I didn’t hear my lessons correctly, Peter is the rock upon which Chris built is church.

Secondly, your church IS SO saying that Christ, even God (along with the Holy Spirit who are ONE to a Catholic) broke his promise.

It says so on your website when your website said that God had to make a promise again.

definition of the word again:

a⋅gain  /əˈgɛn, əˈgeɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-gen, uh-geyn] Show IPA
–adverb 1. once more; another time; anew; in addition: Will you spell your name again, please?
2. in an additional case or instance; moreover; besides; furthermore.
3. on the other hand: It might happen, and again it might not.
4. back; in return; in reply: to answer again.
5. to the same place or person: to return again.

From Mormon.org on The Great Apostasy

God has promised it will never be taken from His children again.

Rationalize all you want. It’s tough to see your belief completely broken down, I know. I’ve had that about other ideas in my life (not Catholicism, however) that I clung to dearly. But once I saw the truth I was free from the bondage of the lie.

 

[ParkerD]

I love how you CONVENIENTLY left off what I quoted. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, but unless I’m misinterpreting, or I didn’t hear my lessons correctly, Peter is the rock upon which Christ built His church.

Secondly, your church IS SO saying that Christ, even God (along with the Holy Spirit who are ONE to a Catholic) broke his promise.

It says so on your website when your website said that God had to make a promise again.

definition of the word again:

From Mormon.org on The Great Apostasy

Rationalize all you want. It’s tough to see your belief completely broken down, I know. I’ve had that about other ideas in my life (not Catholicism, however) that I clung to dearly. But once I saw the truth I was free from the bondage of the lie.

Gracious,
I can only handle so much of all this quoting and re-quoting and isolating statements or questions and so forth. I left off quoting your quote because of that, not because I was trying to minimize your statements and questions. Sorry it offended you.

I think you did “hear your lessons.” I was saying they are incomplete and incorrect in the respect of defining Peter as the rock. I am saying that was one of the incorrect teachings that crept in.

Christ promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” You think “it” refers to the Catholic church. I think “it” refers to the stone of Israel, the sure foundation stone, Jesus Christ. “Prevail” has to do with the entire history of this world from the beginning to the end of it, and I think you and I both believe that Christ will absolutely prevail.

Christ promised that the gospel would not be taken again from the earth. That is what the text in mormon.org says.

I still love Isaiah 61:1-3 about how Christ delivers the brokenhearted by proclaiming “liberty to the captives”, and “the opening of the prison to them that are bound.” I certainly don’t feel any sense of bondage at all, nor am I threatened by anything you have written.

 

[Finrock]

It says so on your website when your website said that
God had to make a promise again.

“God has promised it will never be taken from His children again.”

I’m not making any claims as to how relevant this point is to either side, but the quote you provided doesn’t say that God made a promise again. It says that the promise is that the church will not be taken away again. The “again” refers to the church not being taken away again, not to God’s promise being made again.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[ParkerD]

This answer skirts around the concept of conscience. We do have the ability to discern right from wrong for ourselves, do we not? Invincible ignorance is one thing - but blind submission is another. I would submit that faithful Catholics are not blind followers of “people they trust”, but seekers of Truth, who are able to come to the conclusion that they believe what they believe because it is True, not because it has been told to them by “someone they trusted.”

Perhaps that is true for you. I just don’t get the feeling that it is for others as I read all the comments about “sacred tradition” and “early fathers” and “catchisms”. Sorry.

 

[rinnie]

Bill,
Everything Joseph Smith taught agrees with the Bible. But when Peter announced that the gospel was going to be preached to the Gentiles and they were not going to be circumsized but were going to be baptized, that was an example of revelation that was “new revelation” for that particular point in world history.

Have a good day.

Actually right of the bat that is not true. Smith claims that he had his own private revelation from God. The bible says not to go by the priviate revelations of man. They must be of God. When Peter spoke about God it was revealed to him by the Power of the Holy Spirit that was handed to him from God. We have proof that Peter had the power, the proofs in the bible. If anything is to be taught it will be from the Church and the Church leaders. The bible says stick to the teachings of your Early Fathers. Smith taught his own teachings from himself. The early fathers rejected his teachings, and so do we. We must obey the CC not smith.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes - they are Three Persons in One God - thus a mystery. This is clearly in the Bible. Christ at various times references himself in relation to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but also says they are one. We don’t need to understand it to believe it. And just because we don’t understand it doens’t make it false, or else Christ is a liar.

I have tried to disagree as respectfully as I can. I don’t think it was intended by God that this be the type of mystery you have referred to. But God also allows whatever humankind chooses to do. I strongly disagree with your last sentence here.

Christ also said He wanted us to become one with Him and with the Father. I think it is a simple concept.

I need to leave for a graduation of my daughter. I’ll answer more questions later, or Finrock will which is great or Religio71 usually gets it fairly accurate.

 

[rinnie]

Bottom line, God left us the Church. It says to go by the teachings of the CHurch. The Church was the Catholic CHurch history proves this. The Church again rejects smith. thats it. If he was a true prophet he would not be rejected by the CHurch that GOd started he would be accepted. His wasn’t so he is not a true prophet. Pretty much cut and dry there.,

 

[zaffiroborant]

Joseph Smith said that God the Father was a self-existent Being. He wanted other intelligences to be able to advance as He had advanced, so He devoted Himself to bringing a plan into effect to accomplish that, through His perfect Son, Jesus Christ. As far as I am concerned, God the Father resurrected Himself through knowing the laws that pertain to resurrection, after He had lived in a mortality, the same as Jesus Christ did, who resurrected Himself through the power of the Father as well as His own knowledge of how to implement that power. I don’t think we have enough knowledge from what Joseph Smith is quoted as saying, to understand whether God the Father had a Father in Heaven in the same way that Jesus had a Father in Heaven. If so, it was in another prior universe. I don’t think there is evidence to my knowledge anyway, that there was a belief about this that could now be considered a “restored belief”, but certainly **joint heirship with Jesus Christ is a restored belief, **right from the book of Revelation.
.

You have been told that Catholics believe in joint heirship and you continue to imply we don’t.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

I am a real Prophet I happen to hold that title properly recorded with my church so I don’t get the big issue at the debate here, can any of you Prove the Prophet Smith was not directed by God to start the Mormon faith?

Its not as far fetched as the stories of the other faiths in the Bible like Moses talking to God alone as a burning bush.

 

[rinnie]

Perhaps that is true for you. I just don’t get the feeling that it is for others as I read all the comments about “sacred tradition” and “early fathers” and “catchisms”. Sorry.

Well it is the words of God and it is in the bible. Rather you reject or accept them is up to you. But thats what the bible tells us to do. I am also sorry for you also that you do not accept what the word of God tells us.

 

[CJ_Nick]

I am a real Prophet I happen to hold that title properly recorded with my church so I don’t get the big issue at the debate here, can any of you Prove the Prophet Smith was not directed by God to start the Mormon faith?

Hi Libertarian_FL

GREAT!!!, You are a real Prophet !!! Then we can finally get to the bottom of this.
Is Mr. Joesph Smith the real deal or not???

Peace,
CJ