Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[dianaiad]

Hi Dianaiad – With all due respect, it seems to me that every time polygamy is practiced (in any form) in the Bible it causes nothing but problems for everyone concerned. It always ends up in cat fights between the wives.

That may well be true, or not…but the point is that GOD did not disapprove of it. There may have been problems because those who practiced it didn’t follow the rules and thus hurt each other, but…there is at least one incident where God specifically referenced his giving David all the wives of Saul; not ‘allowing’ it, but actually GIVING them to him. I’d call that ‘support for.’

Also, has it ever occured to you that that may be the King always had his Mother as his Queen. The King would usually have more than one wife and only one Mother, so she was the Queen.

Y’know, I’ve never had that occur to me. After all, David didn’t have his mother as queen, and certainly Esther was Queen to her husband…Abraham, if he had claimed the title “King” (and he certainly could have…) did not have his MOTHER be the ruler in his household.

Lessee…Solomon? I don’t notice any reference to Bathsheba being queen during his reign.

There isn’t any reference to Saul putting his mother on the throne.

Could you tell me where there is any evidence that the King’s mother was the Queen, rather than the ‘dowager’ Queen?

I’m really very curious; you have mentioned a theory I’ve never heard of before. I’d like to hear more.

 

[GodIsGracious]

The bible IS ‘OK with polygamy,’(Abraham, Isaac, David and Solomon, anybody?) and there is nothing in the Bible that says that Jesus either was or was not married.

What you don’t understand is that when Jesus arrived, Christians were called to follow what is in the New Testament. He came to fulfill the prophecies and correct previous misconceptions. To be a Christian is to follow Jesus Christ.

BTW, could you please have more reverence for our Lord Jesus Christ and his Blessed Mother? I swear, every time I see one of your posts it is like I can hear yet another lash of the whip on Jesus.

Nor do Mormons claim that there is.

At this point, there is no telling what Mormons claim.

 

[phoenix3212]

Y’know, I’ve never had that occur to me. After all, David didn’t have his mother as queen, and certainly Esther was Queen to her husband…Abraham, if he had claimed the title “King” (and he certainly could have…) did not have his MOTHER be the ruler in his household.

Lessee…Solomon? I don’t notice any reference to Bathsheba being queen during his reign.

There isn’t any reference to Saul putting his mother on the throne.

Could you tell me where there is any evidence that the King’s mother was the Queen, rather than the ‘dowager’ Queen?

I’m really very curious; you have mentioned a theory I’ve never heard of before. I’d like to hear more.

“Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right.” 1 Kings 2:19

The Queen Mother Bathsheba, whose powers were dependent on her son’s, went on to become a very important adviser. Queen Mothers were for generations recognized as important figures within the kingdom. 31 Proverbs identifies itself as, “The words of Lemuel, king of Massa, which his mother taught him.” Jeremiah says “to the king and to the queen mother: come down from your throne; From your heads fall your magnificent crowns” (Jer 13:18). These testify to the notion that Queen Mothers were indeed important in ancient Israel (and still today with Mary).

 

[Irish_Kathy]

That may well be true, or not…but the point is that GOD did not disapprove of it. There may have been problems because those who practiced it didn’t follow the rules and thus hurt each other, but…there is at least one incident where God specifically referenced his giving David all the wives of Saul; not ‘allowing’ it, but actually GIVING them to him. I’d call that ‘support for.’

Y’know, I’ve never had that occur to me. After all, David didn’t have his mother as queen, and certainly Esther was Queen to her husband…Abraham, if he had claimed the title “King” (and he certainly could have…) did not have his MOTHER be the ruler in his household.

Lessee…Solomon? I don’t notice any reference to Bathsheba being queen during his reign.

There isn’t any reference to Saul putting his mother on the throne.

Could you tell me where there is any evidence that the King’s mother was the Queen, rather than the ‘dowager’ Queen?

I’m really very curious; you have mentioned a theory I’ve never heard of before. I’d like to hear more.

Here’s a link to a site that gives just a brief verision of what Dr. Scott Hahn has to say about why we HONOR Mary, and it comes down to the concept of the Queen Mother in Israel. As you go further down, you will come upon some of where his concept comes from. But it isn’t really his theory at all, because he use to be “anti-Catholic,” as you will quite clearly read. He pulls no punches about having been against the Catholic Church at one time. But I think it helps you to understand him a bit as you read.

catholic-pages.com/bvm/hahn.asp

Kathy

 

[pipper]

That may well be true, or not…but the point is that GOD did not disapprove of it. There may have been problems because those who practiced it didn’t follow the rules and thus hurt each other, but…there is at least one incident where God specifically referenced his giving David all the wives of Saul; not ‘allowing’ it, but actually GIVING them to him. I’d call that ‘support for.’

Y’know, I’ve never had that occur to me. After all, David didn’t have his mother as queen, and certainly Esther was Queen to her husband…Abraham, if he had claimed the title “King” (and he certainly could have…) did not have his MOTHER be the ruler in his household.

Lessee…Solomon? I don’t notice any reference to Bathsheba being queen during his reign.

There isn’t any reference to Saul putting his mother on the throne.

Could you tell me where there is any evidence that the King’s mother was the Queen, rather than the ‘dowager’ Queen?

I’m really very curious; you have mentioned a theory I’ve never heard of before. I’d like to hear more.

Is there even a single reference to polygamy in the NEW TESTAMENT, or any reference until the BOM Doctrines and Coventants, or Pearl of Great Price?

If so I haven’t seen a one.

I know that Mormons don’t distingish between the testaments and see a continous church before and after Jesus until the so called “great apostacy” and “restoration”. But Catholics see things quite differently.

I have another question, why are Mormons bothering to converse with people who are “totally apostate” for any other reason, but to proselytise them?

 

[MelanieAnne]

why are Mormons bothering to converse with people who are “totally apostate” for any other reason, but to proselytise them?

Good question! Gee, imagine what the answer might be. Do you really think they all came here looking for new friends? They just wanted to exchange views? And there were no other people in the universe nearby to do so, and as a result they just happened to pop up here? What a coincidence!

 

[zerinus]

First, it really isn’t a matter up for interpretation - it’s very simple. Jesus said it. Now, either it is true or not true. I find it hard to argue around some vague “interpretation” of what it means. Surely if the “gates of hell” (all evil/any evil) can’t prevail against His Church, nothing can. Second, I am flattered, but my syllogism isn’t elaborate. I never claimed it to be clever - it’s too simple to be clever.

That is one way of understanding it; but it is not the only one. The Orthodox Church, for example, understands that verse differently. They believe that the “rock” refers to the confession of faith that Peter had expressed, rather than to Peter himself. Here is a link. Interpreting that verse differently is not just a Mormon thing. The Orthodox are as old as the Catholic Church, and the second biggest denomination. So your interpretation is not such a cut and dried case as you think it is.

 

[rinnie]

If you wanted to look at it that way, then so did Jesus, so did Peter, so did Paul.

I don’t think so!

I could say the same about you.

I didn’t get what one.

What I meant was that a testimony is a personal thing. My testimony of the truth of Joseph Smith is good enough for me. It is not good enough for you. You have to obtain your own. It cannot be “shared,” like the oil in the lamps. Each has to obtain his own. I know what I know to be true. You can contradict it all you want. But it won’t have any effect on me.

See again totally against scripture. All scripture is to be shared by all. Did the bible not say go and make disciples of all nations. Where does scripture say it cannot be shared you must obtain it on your own. Its like every thing you say contradicts scripture completely. Again could you show me one piece of scripture for what you teach. Just ONe!

 

[rinnie]

That is one way of understanding it; but it is not the only one. The Orthodox Church, for example, understands that verse differently. They believe that the “rock” refers to the confession of faith that Peter had expressed, rather than to Peter himself. Here is a link. Interpreting that verse differently is not just a Mormon thing. The Orthodox are as old as the Catholic Church, and the second biggest denomination. So your interpretation is not such a cut and dried case as you think it is.

But it really does not matter. We still have the same beliefs as far as scripture goes. We still have the sacraments etc. We still believe in the Eucharist, etc. Customs are different that is all. As long as they are in communion with Rome all is cool.

 

[zerinus]

The following Mormon teachings are not in the bible, they’re not even in the Book of Mormon.

It does not have to be. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are ancient books of acripture. The Doctrine and Covenants is a modern book of revelations and scripture that pertains to this dispensation. What is the point of having a new dispensation of the gospel if nothing new is going to be revealed? In every dispensation new truths has been revealed that had not existed before.

Joseph Smith practiced a make-it-as-you-go religion.

LOL! Not true.

 

[Zundrah]

It does not have to be. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are ancient books of acripture. The Doctrine and Covenants is a modern book of revelations and scripture that pertains to this dispensation. What is the point of having a new dispensation of the gospel if nothing new is going to be revealed? In every dispensation new truths has been revealed that had not existed before.

LOL! Not true.

“LOL! Not true”… it **is **true. The book of mormon is NOT ancient! It is a meager 200 years old where as the bible is more than two thousand years old (and that is just the new testament). The book of mormon is a made up practice that joseph Smith developed to begin a new cult!
The book of mormon is completely not needed. - Prove to me otherwise! I would like that!

 

[mscamp]

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.

 

[zerinus]

Case in point: the parable of the 10 virgins is not about how you cannot share your oil i.e. I cannot share my testimony to make it someone else’s. The parable is about being prepared for when the bridegroom, Jesus Christ, arrives. It has nothing to do with not being able to share. Again, yet another Mormon TWISTING what is in the bible.

The parable is an allegorical representation, and it is possible to interpret it in several different ways. But one thing is certain: half of the virgins had something that the other virgins didn’t have, which they could not share with them. That is obvious. How you want to interpret that is up to you. If you are interested, I can give you an interpretation of the parable of the ten virgins that is given in modern LDS scripture:

D&C 45:

56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.

57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.

As regards the rest of your post, I respect your opinions. I am not out to argue with people, but to inform them if I can. I respect your opinions, and I hope that you respect mine.

 

[Finrock]

Good morning pipper! I am hoping you are doing well today.

I have another question, why are Mormons bothering to converse with people who are “totally apostate” for any other reason, but to proselytise them?

Since I’ve joined the forum, I’ve seen this question asked several times. Each time I’ve seen various responses from the Mormons here. For me, I really don’t take part in online discussion forums to proselytize. I just don’t think it is a very effective medium for that. I’m mostly motivated by the desire to provide a representation of the LDS church that is grounded in fact, rather than misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and some times just flat out falsehoods. Some other motivations for me are social and intellectual in nature. I like talking to people. I’m intellectually stimulated by pleasant debate and conversation. I often also utilize my time responding to questions asked on the forums to also get in my daily scripture study, so it is also a learning experience for me. I do hope that something I say might have an positive effect on someone, although I don’t expect it or even seek after it. If it happens, it is a bonus. If something I write helps someone to feel the Spirit, then I am not going to complain about that.

My church teaches me that all of us are literally spirit children of Heavenly Father. That means that all of us are literally brothers and sisters. I truly believe that. The more I try to focus on that, the more I have a desire to treat others with respect and kindness. I try not to view myself and others as having this great chasm that separates us. In you and in others I see a brother or a sister trying to live their life the best they can and doing what they know to be good and right. So, my eyes don’t see and my mind doesn’t believe that others not like me are “totally apostate” inferior beings who I wouldn’t even bother acknowledging if I wasn’t commanded to try and convert them. That sentiment is completely wrong and I would bet my bottom dollar that most Mormons would agree with me.

I see in you and in others a son or a daughter of Heavenly Father who is equal in value in every way, deserving kindness, respect, and love.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[pickguard1]

That is one way of understanding it; but it is not the only one. The Orthodox Church, for example, understands that verse differently. They believe that the “rock” refers to the confession of faith that Peter had expressed, rather than to Peter himself. Here is a link. Interpreting that verse differently is not just a Mormon thing. The Orthodox are as old as the Catholic Church, and the second biggest denomination. So your interpretation is not such a cut and dried case as you think it is.

The fact that the correct interpretation is disputed doesn’t mean it’s not cut and dried. The Orthodox are just as wrong on this point as any other denomination that claims the “rock” means something other than Peter. Saying “red” means “blue” doesn’t make the red thing any less red.

 

[pickguard1]

Thanks for the question. There is a hierarchical structure within the church which helps to ensure that there isn’t what I’m going to call “revelation chaos”. In other words, each person is entitled to receive revelation for their own lives, but it should always be measured up against the scriptures and the inspiried words of prophets and apostles. As you move up the priesthood hierarchy, your jurisdiction expands and you are entitled to receive revelation within the jurisdiction of your priesthood office, always bound by the principle that applies to personal revelation, until you reach the President of the Church, who is entitled to receive revelation for the whole church and, following the pattern given in scripture, is the only one who can supercede previous revelation whether ancient or modern.

So, to directly answer your question. If a person were to claim that they received revelation that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet of God, then it could and most likely would be discarded. The person is not entitled to receive revelation that supercedes currently revealed scripture or inspired words of latter-day prophets and apostles.

I hope this answered your question. If not, please let me know and I’ll try again.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

thanks for answering the question. This is a reasonable explanation for how such a situation would be dealt with. I still have a problem with it though, in light of your explanation. If scripture is to be the guide, why is it so easily accepted that Joseph Smith needed an entirely new scripture to prop up his claims of revelation? Why was this revelation not rejected on the same grounds that say, Islam would be rejected - by the way, what do Mormons think about Islam?

 

[pickguard1]

I wanted to mention, which I haven’t really made clear so far, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does believe that confession is required for serious sins. I guess in that sense (going back to some of my earlier questions), bishops and stake presidents, as “judges in Israel”, have a pretty significant part in whether or not a person is forgiven. A non-exhaustive list of sins that Mormons must confess to their bishops to be fully forgiven are sins such as, “…adultery, fornication, robbery, embezzlement, fraud, false swearing, and comparable transgressions” (Encyclopedio of Mormonism).

We believe that sins of a “lesser gravity” (venial sins) must only be confessed to God or in cases where it is applicable, to the person you injured.

This is surprising, in that very few Chritian denominations besides Catholics hold to this biblical instruction. If we can’t agree on everything (or even many things, I’ll admit at least this is one Joseph Smith got right

I don’t doubt your sincerity and so I do appreciate your desires for me to find the Truth. With all respect, for me, the question of whether or not the LDS church is true is a settled question, and has been for a long time. I try to be quick to acknowledge my ignorance, but I’ve no doubt as to where I can find the answers to my questions. I share the same assurance about my religion as you do about yours.

I have no doubt about your sincerity and assurance - I just hope I can steer them back on track

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[pickguard1]

I have another question, why are Mormons bothering to converse with people who are “totally apostate” for any other reason, but to proselytise them?

Regardless of their reasons, we should use their presence as an opportunity to “let our light shine” as Christ says in today’s Gospel from Matthew chapter 5.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The parable is an allegorical representation, and it is possible to interpret it in several different ways. But one thing is certain: half of the virgins had something that the other virgins didn’t have, which they could not share with them. That is obvious. How you want to interpret that is up to you. If you are interested, I can give you an interpretation of the parable of the ten virgins that is given in modern LDS scripture:
D&C 45:

56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.

57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.As regards the rest of your post, I respect your opinions. I am not out to argue with people, but to inform them if I can. I respect your opinions, and I hope that you respect mine.

This is not a different interpretation, it is a corruption of Matthew 25. It is clearly about acting on what has been taught to us as Christians. Which includes being prepared for the day the Bridegroom comes.

Matthew 25 is speaking of the wise and the foolish:

2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones, when taking their lamps, brought no oil with them, 4 but the wise brought flasks of oil with their lamps.

Matthew 27 tells us who is wise and who is foolish:

24 "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. 26 And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.

 

[phoenix3212]

That is one way of understanding it; but it is not the only one. The Orthodox Church, for example, understands that verse differently. They believe that the “rock” refers to the confession of faith that Peter had expressed, rather than to Peter himself. Here is a link. Interpreting that verse differently is not just a Mormon thing. The Orthodox are as old as the Catholic Church, and the second biggest denomination. So your interpretation is not such a cut and dried case as you think it is.

The problem of course here is that Jesus changed his name to Kephas (rock). God doesn’t change names arbitrarily or for no purpose. Because Jesus changed Peter’s name to Kephas, and then said “on this Kephas I will build my Church,” the only straightforward explanation is that he was speaking to and about Peter.