Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[rinnie]

One more thing finrock, by the way I appreciate your response I really do, I am just trying to make sense of it.

You said your church accepts the oral and written scripture. Okay now oral is passed down from the Church through apostolic succession. Now when and where did your Church get them? Because I thought only the Catholic Church has both written and Tradition?

 

[GodIsGracious]

nvm

 

[ParkerD]

I guess maybe my question was posed incorrectly. Do you believe that there is the possibility of eternal damnation?

Pickguard,
I believe that there are two senses of the words “eternal damnation”. One sense is that found in this passage in John 5:
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

That resurrection of damnation means that those who receive this kind of resurrection did “evil” and were unrepentant in this life, and they are resurrected after the Millenium to a condition where their eternal progression is stopped. They will have suffered the pains of hell, then be rescued by Christ who holds the keys to let the prisoners go free from that prison of hell, after they have suffered and have bowed the knee (spiritually) and confessed Christ and accepted His atonement.

Those in this life or in hell who denied the Holy Ghost with full knowledge of their rebellion are sons of perdition, and will not be rescued from hell by Christ, as He expressed in His intercessory prayer. (John 17:12) That would be the second sense of eternal damnation, for they remain forever in outer darkness or hell.

To again restate, I think the Bible is clear that people will receive the kind of “reward” in the next life that they lived for in this life, based on their actions and choices and the good that they did from day to day, including repenting and trying to do better as they go through life.

 

[rinnie]

Pickguard,
I believe that there are two senses of the words “eternal damnation”. One sense is that found in this passage in John 5:
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

That resurrection of damnation means that those who receive this kind of resurrection did “evil” and were unrepentant in this life, and they are resurrected after the Millenium to a condition where their eternal progression is stopped. They will have suffered the pains of hell, then be rescued by Christ who holds the keys to let the prisoners go free from that prison of hell, after they have suffered and have bowed the knee (spiritually) and confessed Christ and accepted His atonement.

Those in this life or in hell who denied the Holy Ghost with full knowledge of their rebellion are sons of perdition, and will not be rescued from hell by Christ, as He expressed in His intercessory prayer. (John 17:12) That would be the second sense of eternal damnation, for they remain forever in outer darkness or hell.

To again restate, I think the Bible is clear that people will receive the kind of “reward” in the next life that they lived for in this life, based on their actions and choices and the good that they did from day to day, including repenting and trying to do better as they go through life.

First let me say your last paragraph, I have never agree with anyone more than that. But now here is my problem.

The paragraph before it. THe bible says that if a person is sent to hell they are in eternal danmation. Now what is the definition of hell. Hell is total separation from God. Now when we die and we are judged from God we are headed for 2 places. Heaven or hell. That’s what the bible says. Now I agree if we die and are not in mortal sin, but still need the final cleansing agree we go to that place for final cleansing. Purgatory but I do not want to go there on this thread. But my point is either or. The bibles states quite clear if you sin against the Holy Spirit there is no forgiveness. Do you agree or disagree with that?

 

[MelanieAnne]

One more thing finrock, by the way I appreciate your response I really do, I am just trying to make sense of it.

You said your church accepts the oral and written scripture. Okay now oral is passed down from the Church through apostolic succession. Now when and where did your Church get them? Because I thought only the Catholic Church has both written and Tradition?

The Mormon church does not have Apostolic Succession in the same sense that Catholics understand it. They believe that the first members of their Church were ordained by Apostles who appeared to them on the Earth, not in an unbroken line of ordained clergy that dates back to living human beings in the 1st Century.

This is why it is important to define terms when discussing any issue, even the most basic one, with a Mormon. They have co-opted the language of Christianity but they do not mean the same thing as we do with the terms they use. They have a trinity too, although it is rarely referred to that way, but does not mean the same thing. They have a God and Jesus and Holy Spirit, but not the ones that we know.

 

[rinnie]

The Mormon church does not have Apostolic Succession in the same sense that Catholics understand it. They believe that the first members of their Church were ordained by Apostles who appeared to them on the Earth, not in an unbroken line of ordained clergy that dates back to living human beings in the 1st Century.

This is why it is important to define terms when discussing any issue, even the most basic one, with a Mormon. They have co-opted the language of Christianity but they do not mean the same thing as we do with the terms they use. They have a trinity too, although it is rarely referred to that way, but does not mean the same thing. They have a God and Jesus and Holy Spirit, but not the ones that we know.

Hi Melanie That is becomming more and more clear. The more questions I ask and the mpre answers I get the further from scripture I get. But then How can they claim to go by the same bible that we do, when the teachings are not even close to scripture. Thats where I am at a loss with them. They have no scripture whatsoever to back up their responses but claim to go by the bible. They claim to have oral and written scripture but again where is it. Their teachings are totally the opposite.

 

[pickguard1]

Pickguard,
I believe that there are two senses of the words “eternal damnation”. One sense is that found in this passage in John 5:
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

In this passage, Christ is referring to those who were already dead - those who had no ability to live according to the New Covenant, since they died before the coming of Christ. They are to be judged based on their adherence to the Old Covenant and the Natural Law imparted to their consciences. However, those that came afterward (after Christ’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, will be judged based upon their adherence to the New Convenant. (I don’t want to get into invincible ignorance here - but suffice it to say that, in general we are going to be judged by whether or not we kept to what Christ taught).

It seems that your understanding of judgment is similar - but not the same - as the Catholic teaching of Purgatory, in that there is an intermediate state for some of those who still need purification. The major difference is that there isn’t anything that a person who has died can do about that - you are judged by what you do here, on earth. Death is the cutoff for good works to help yourself towards salvation. A person in Purgatory isn’t continuing to undergo judgement - they’ve already been judged. They WILL be in heaven. A person who is in hell cannot be purified, because through their actions on earth, they made a definitive, permanent decision to be separate from God.

So while your beliefs might share something similar, there is a gaping flaw, in that you believe that there is the possibility of multiple judgements after death.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Hi Melanie That is becomming more and more clear. The more questions I ask and the mpre answers I get the further from scripture I get. But then How can they claim to go by the same bible that we do, when the teachings are not even close to scripture. Thats where I am at a loss with them. They have no scripture whatsoever to back up their responses but claim to go by the bible. They claim to have oral and written scripture but again where is it. Their teachings are totally the opposite.

They don’t go by the same Bible, that’s just it. To start with, they use a redacted version of the Bible ~ the King James Version ~ a Protestant Bible that has many of the books in our Bible removed (the ones the Protestants decided didn’t fit with their view of things). Then there is the alterations made by Joseph Smith to THAT version to fit HIS view of things. So you’re not talking about the same Bible.

 

[Bill_Pick]

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.

You must be kidding with this statement “Everything Joseph Smith taught agrees with the Bible” so are you saying the bible is OK with polygamy and Jesus had many wifes

 

[MelanieAnne]

You must be kidding with this statement “Everything Joseph Smith taught agrees with the Bible” so are you saying the bible is OK with polygamy and Jesus had many wifes

Maybe Parker just doesn’t know what’s in the Bible.

 

[ParkerD]

You must be kidding with this statement “Everything Joseph Smith taught agrees with the Bible” so are you saying the bible was OK with polygamy and Jesus had many wives? (NO)

Bill,
I think the Bible implies that the marriages of Jacob (Israel) were OK in God’s eyes for that point in time. I personally don’t think Jesus was married. I think Abraham was a very righteous man. I am very grateful for his obedience and faith.

I am also very grateful for my own marriage, and what I have learned through marriage. I would be incomplete without my marriage to my wife 29 years ago. 'Still learning a lot, still growing, still enjoying the wonderful blessings of family life.

 

[Finrock]

Hi pickguard! You’ve been on a posting frenzy here lately. Nothing wrong with that!

How is this belief reconciled with Christ’s words to His Apostles, “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain are retained?”

This is a good question. This doctrine is reiterated in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Speaking of Joseph Smith, it is recorded:

“45 For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time. 46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven. 47 And again, verily I say, whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will curse, saith the Lord; for I, the Lord, am thy God” (D&C 132, Emphasis added).

I’m not sure I understand exactly what this means. This seems to go with the sealing keys, that in LDS belief are only conferred upon the President of the Church, who can then delegate these keys, but I am aware of no bishop or stake president who has the sealing keys. If I understand both the scripture in John you referenced and the reaffirmation in D&C, then it appears that a part of the sealing authority that the President of the Church has, is the power to remit or retain sins on earth and it will be done in heaven.

So, this should satisfy your question of reconcilliation with scripture in John, however it does pose more questions that I am now interested in pursuing. Namely, I’d like to know exactly what does this mean in an LDS context, how is it applied, and if there are any historical examples of this authority being used by a President of the Church?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[pickguard1]

Hi pickguard! You’ve been on a posting frenzy here lately. Nothing wrong with that!

This is a good question. This doctrine is reiterated in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Speaking of Joseph Smith, it is recorded:

“45 For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time. 46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven. 47 And again, verily I say, whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will curse, saith the Lord; for I, the Lord, am thy God” (D&C 132, Emphasis added).

I’m not sure I understand exactly what this means. This seems to go with the sealing keys, that in LDS belief are only conferred upon the President of the Church, who can then delegate these keys, but I am aware of no bishop or stake president who has the sealing keys. If I understand both the scripture in John you referenced and the reaffirmation in D&C, then it appears that a part of the sealing authority that the President of the Church has, is the power to remit or retain sins on earth and it will be done in heaven.

So, this should satisfy your question of reconcilliation with scripture in John, however it does pose more questions that I am now interested in pursuing. Namely, I’d like to know exactly what does this mean in an LDS context, how is it applied, and if there are any historical examples of this authority being used by a President of the Church?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Let my posting frenzy continue
It would be interesting to find out if there is a Mormon application of a rite of penance. It follows that if Christ gave the authority to the Apostles to forgive and bind sins, it would be incumbent upon them to actually do so, (and hence the Catholic Sacrament of Confession). Sins are difficult to be forgiven or not forgiven if they remain unknown - and Christ didn’t give the Apostles an ability to see men’s sins without them being confessed. Interestingly, this is one of the major obstacles for most Protestant denominations with the Catholic Church - the complete rejection of the Church’s explicit authority to forgive sins. If the LDS retain this, they would be more akin to traditional Christians in this sense than most direct break-away denominations.

I hope that your search for more information brings you to the knowledge of the Truth to be found in the Catholic Church. Truly, there isn’t really any question that can’t be answered irrefutably regarding the Church and its doctrines if looked at honestly.

Peace of Christ,
Will

 

[Finrock]

Hi rinnie!

Thanks for your questions. Hopefully I can clarify some of the things I typed earlier and answer your questions.

Okay lets start here, if we are from the same Church and the same teachings why do you not believe that same way we do?

Next question you said that Joseph Smith got his authority by Apostolic Succession. Then is he not ordained with Holy orders. That by the way us proof of Apostolic Succession.

First, we should establish that Mormonism doesn’t understand itself to be from the same Church as Catholicism nor do we claim to necessarily have the same teachings. This is what I mean, for instance, when I said in my previous post that even though we believe in Apostolic succession, we do not believe it in the same sense as Catholics do. Meaning, we believe that the Apostles Peter, James, and John restored the priesthood to Joseph Smith, and since that restoration of the priesthood, there has been a continuous line of priesthood authority within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Part of the LDS message, which obviously is not believe by Catholics, is that the priesthood authority was lost and that it needed to be restored. Hence, we believe that it was restored through those who had the authority to restore the priesthood, namely Apostles (in this case Peter, James, and John under the direction of Jesus Christ).

But now here is the best even though you don’t have the power of the Holy Spriit to give absolution, because you believe that only God can, but you believe that your leader has the will of God. Is that not what you said? Unbelievable,"

What I was intending to say, even though I didn’t put this qualification in my earlier post so I can understand the misunderstanding, is that we believe a bishop or stake president can know, by the power of the Holy Ghost, when God has forgiven a person. I did not intend to imply that bishops (eq. to Catholic priest) and stake presidents (eq. to Catholic bishop) know God’s will in all things at all times. Although as sheppards of their respective areas, they do have the right to receive revelation and inspiration to know God’s will for that part of God’s kingdom on earth. For example, I often pray to know God’s will concerning my life. Sometimes God answers my prayers and lets me know His will concerning my life. In the same sense, bishops can receive revelation to know God’s will not only pertaining to their own personal lives, bishops can also receive revelation to know God’s will concerning their wards (parish).

Now here is my very favorite part, you have the guarantee of eternal life. Now what happens to the final judgement thats written in the bible. Did you throw that book out or what? Because first for sins you claim your leader knows the will of the Father. Thats priceless, Because only the Father knows Gods will. Even the Pope has never claimed to know the will of the Father. Even the Apostles never claimed to know the will of the Father.

Now again what about the final judgement. What is that. Because you don’t seem to have that.He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. Now if you are guaranteed of eternal life, why would Jesus come again to judge the living and the dead?

We do believe in final judgement and it is where mankind will be judged for their choices. The calling and election is a special circumstance and I only mentioned the Calling and Election because it fits in to the general idea of sealing powers. Mormons believe that this doctrine is found not only in modern day scriptures, but also in the Bible. We believe that 2 Peter speaks to this:

“4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” (2 Peter 1, Emphasis added).

In LDS understanding, having one’s calling and election made sure is difficult to attain. You brought up final judgment, and I did not mean to imply that bishops can simply pronounce this blessing on whomever. Bishops don’t have the sealing keys to do this. Only the President of the Church. So, most people will not have their calling and election made sure on earth. But, when a person has attained their calling and election, it’s as if they have already been through final judgment. It is believe that eventually, all true disciples of Christ will have their calling and election made sure after final judgment. Just as 2 Peter speaks to the calling and election, it also spells out some of the qualifications. Speaking on this, Joseph Smith said, “When the Lord has thoroughly proved [a person], and finds that the [person] is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the [person] will find his[/her] calling and election made sure.”

Undersand, that I recognize that not all of these aren’t things that Catholics believe. My intent is to give clarification and understanding of the LDS religion.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[pickguard1]

Finrock, I have a theoretical question. If it is possible for new revelation to be contiunally and presently (meaning today or in today’s world) imparted, what would happen if an LDS member were to claim a revelation from God that said that the teachings of Joseph Smith/LDS Church had been wrong and that it wan’t the right way, but some other way?

 

[rinnie]

Hi Finrock thank you for your kindness and patience. First of all okay the Priesthood. THe bible says that the Priesthood will be here until Jesus comes again. He promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostles and their successors until he comes again in Glory. Now if there are no longer any authority amongs the Priests then Jesus lied right. Which is impossible. Jesus said I will give you the words and will be with you until the end of time. Now that shoots that theory right there. Lets start there. What about the scripture that contradicts Mr smiths comment there.

 

[Laurie_S_1]

As a Prophet myself ,I have the ULC document verifying my title right near me, and so I will give my two cents here. Who said he was not a prophet, if a man or woman founds a new faith path one can clearly be a prophet and he did found Mormonism.

I myself am not even a Christian revelator I draw on the beauty of science and the insights afforded my with my natural faculties to promote a new faith path so according to that simple definition I am a Prophet.

Be nice or I will call down the Flying Spagetti Monster on you heretics!
(just kidding I don’t believe in abusing my formidable powers as a Prophet)

Anyway according to my teaching all of you are in fact 100% correct - in some parallel Earth or area of the Multiverse.

Prophets are by definition studied, and must be accurate with Jesus’ new covenant teachings. They must meet the criteria of public revelation verses any kind of private revelation which in 99.9% of cases, end up being the persons own mind speaking to them, and or mental issues such as yours. There is NO NEW FAITH PATH, and if you believe this your soul is in jeopardy.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi pickguard! You’ve been on a posting frenzy here lately. Nothing wrong with that!

This is a good question. This doctrine is reiterated in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Speaking of Joseph Smith, it is recorded:

“45 For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time. 46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven. 47 And again, verily I say, whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will curse, saith the Lord; for I, the Lord, am thy God” (D&C 132, Emphasis added).

I’m not sure I understand exactly what this means. This seems to go with the sealing keys, that in LDS belief are only conferred upon the President of the Church, who can then delegate these keys, but I am aware of no bishop or stake president who has the sealing keys. If I understand both the scripture in John you referenced and the reaffirmation in D&C, then it appears that a part of the sealing authority that the President of the Church has, is the power to remit or retain sins on earth and it will be done in heaven.

So, this should satisfy your question of reconcilliation with scripture in John, however it does pose more questions that I am now interested in pursuing. Namely, I’d like to know exactly what does this mean in an LDS context, how is it applied, and if there are any historical examples of this authority being used by a President of the Church?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Finrock,
Thanks for all of your posts, and your kindness in all of those. I think your last question here has to do with membership in the church and restorations of blessings after loss of membership. I think I’ve answered about all the questions I feel inclined to answer at this point, so carry on and thank you!

 

[zerinus]

Finrock, I have a theoretical question. If it is possible for new revelation to be contiunally and presently (meaning today or in today’s world) imparted, what would happen if an LDS member were to claim a revelation from God that said that the teachings of Joseph Smith/LDS Church had been wrong and that it wan’t the right way, but some other way?

In all ages of the world there have been true prophets alongside false ones. False prophets have contradicted the teachings of true prophets. In the days of Jeremiah, for example, there was a guy by the name of Hananiah who was a false prophet. He contradicted everything that Jeremiah taught. He came to an unhappy ending. You can read his story in Jeremiah chapter 28. His case was a rather dramatic example; but your question is kind of like that. If somebody made such a claim as you are suggesting (and many do), it would be up to you and me to discern by the Spirit who is telling the truth, him or Joseph Smith. We would be in the same situation that the Jews were in the days of Jeremiah and Hananiah. Each would have to decide for himself who is telling the truth and whom you want to follow. Luckily there is a way we can know. Each has to make that determination for himself. It is like the parable of the ten virgins. Each must have oil in their own lamps. Those who have cannot lend to those who have not.

 

[GodIsGracious]

In all ages of the world there have been true prophets alongside false ones. False prophets have contradicted the teachings of true prophets. In the days of Jeremiah, for example, there was a guy by the name of Hananiah who was a false prophet. He contradicted everything that Jeremiah taught. He came to an unhappy ending. You can read his story in Jeremiah chapter 28. His case was a rather dramatic example; but your question is kind of like that. If somebody made such a claim as you are suggesting (and many do), it would be up to you and me to discern by the Spirit who is telling the truth, him or Joseph Smith. We would be in the same situation that the Jews were in the days of Jeremiah and Hananiah. Each would have to decide for himself who is telling the truth and whom you want to follow. Luckily there is a way we can know. Each has to make that determination for himself. It is like the parable of the ten virgins. Each must have oil in their own lamps. Those who have cannot lend to those who have not.

Didn’t Smith come to an unhappy ending? And Smith’s teachings contradict the bible. It’s been shown all over this Non-Catholic Religions forum, the LDS on here just refuse to see it.

And you’re forgetting a more recent situation that of Joseph Smith and the Catholic church.

I also don’t see how this relates to the 10 virgins parable.