Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[ricko]

“It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). There are no “second chances” after death. Consequently, God judges individuals based on their actions in this life. Since he is a just judge, he does not hold people accountable for what they did not and could not have known.

In Alma 34:35-36 we read: “For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked.”

Joseph Smith also said that once you have died under sin there is no hope. I can’t find the quote but I’m sure you know of it.

There is no need of baptism of the dead, no second chance. We are judged immediately after death.

 

[zerinus]

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.

Thank you for expressing your opinion. We and the Orthodox Church have a different opinion. We think that our opinion is correct, just as you think that yours is. Your opinion is as important as ours. We can agree to disagree.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

One could, if one wanted to study this particular issue, use a comparative set of different translations to see how translators viewed the original text they were translating from. Here is an easy online source for that:
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:18;&version=45;

 

[zerinus]

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?

Mormonism is a new dispensation of the gospel. A new dispensation necessitates new revelation. A new dispensation cannot exist without new revelation. You may disbelieve in the new dispensation; but you can’t argue that you can have a new dispensation without new revelation. The ancient Jews also brought the same argument against Jesus and His disciples:

John 9:

28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

If your argument is valid, so was theirs. It is based on the same logic as theirs.

 

[ParkerD]

“It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). There are no “second chances” after death. Consequently, God judges individuals based on their actions in this life. Since he is a just judge, he does not hold people accountable for what they did not and could not have known.

In Alma 34:35-36 we read: “For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked.”

Joseph Smith also said that once you have died under sin there is no hope. I can’t find the quote but I’m sure you know of it.

There is no need of baptism of the dead, no second chance. We are judged immediately after death.

Ricko,
Peter made clear the understanding that Christ preached the gospel to spirits in prison, that “they might be judged according to men in the flesh.” (See 1 Peter 3:18,19 and 4:6) This would be for those who never had a suitable chance during their mortal life to hear and understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and to receive baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost for the baptism of fire. (See John 3)

 

[zerinus]

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.

That is a good point. I am sure Peter’s own rock-like character as a witness of Jesus Christ, and his unwaveringness in the face of persecution and death, had something to do with what Jesus had said to him. He stands as an example to us of the rock-like solidity of his testimony. But that does not mean that the Church was built on him. The Church was built on Jesus Christ, and the rock-like testimony of the Holy Spirit in Him that His true disciples should have.

 

[pickguard1]

Ricko,
Peter made clear the understanding that Christ preached the gospel to spirits in prison, that “they might be judged according to men in the flesh.” (See 1 Peter 3:18,19 and 4:6) This would be for those who never had a suitable chance during their mortal life to hear and understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and to receive baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost for the baptism of fire. (See John 3)

OK - the passages in Peter are part of the foundation for the Catholic teaching of Purgatory. As I said in a previous post, there is some similarity between Purgatory and the Mormon concept of a “middle state” of some sorts. HOWEVER, Christ, upon his death preached the Gospel NOT to those already in hell, since by their obstinant resistance to God they eternally sealed their fate. What He did was enlighten those souls who had died before His coming and were not fit to enter into the Kingdom of God yet, since they still had the impurity of Original Sin (but who had otherwise led just lives).

I know that LDS probably reject the concept of Original Sin (I don’t know for sure) but regardless of that, does it not make sense that if JESUS is the one who went to that middle place (purgatory, telestial kingdom, whatever you want to call it) to preach the Gospel, what need is there of US to do ANYTHING else? Isn’t it silly to assume that Jesus does not continue to minister to those souls? What could we possible do that He can’t or hasn’t already?

IF there is a baptism of the dead, and those who die without the knowledge of Christ are able to be joined somehow to God through this, I think that ANY evidence points to the fact that Jesus would be the one to do it, indeed, the only one who COULD do it. What need is there for anyone living to go through the motions of a baptism of someone who is already being ministered to by Christ?

 

[majick275]

Mormonism is a new dispensation of the gospel. A new dispensation necessitates new revelation. A new dispensation cannot exist without new revelation. You may disbelieve in the new dispensation; but you can’t argue that you can have a new dispensation without new revelation. The ancient Jews also brought the same argument against Jesus and His disciples:

John 9:

28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

If your argument is valid, so was theirs. It is based on the same logic as theirs.

the concept of “dispensations” in theology is unique to mormonism. the closest thing to it in Christianity is the old and new covenants. (giving you only 2 possible “dispensations” ever)

 

[pickguard1]

That is a good point.TRUE I am sure Peter’s own rock-like character as a witness of Jesus Christ, and his unwaveringness in the face of persecution and death, had something to do with what Jesus had said to him. I AM SURE YOU’RE ONTO SOMETHINGHe stands as an example to us of the rock-like solidity of his testimony.YES INDEED But that does not mean that the Church was built on him.AND THE ROCK CLIMBER FELL OFF THE CLIFF The Church was built on Jesus Christ, and the rock-like testimony of the Holy Spirit in Him that His true disciples should have.STILL FALLING(light red parts are PICKGUARD1

Would you believe Jesus if he appeared to you and said “Actually, it IS Peter (the Rock) uopn whom I built my Church.”? Oh wait, he already said that! He doesn’t need to personally appear to anyone to verify it - His Gospel, the Truth of which is protected by the Holy Spirit, plainly shows that this is exactly what He said.

To say that he didn’t means either A) you haven’t read the text, or B) you have to do some pretty amazing mental gymnastics to convince yourself that Jesus didn’t mean what he said. I’ll assume it’s the latter.

The Truth doesn’t require feats of intellectual acrobatics to attain - it’s plainly there. Now accepting the Truth is another matter entirely, we have to do a lot of spiritual gymnastics to dodge the snares of the devil, of which there are many, and always have been many. From the Jews turning back to paganism when Moses was on Mt. Sinai to the Jews who turned away from Christ upon hearing His doctrine on the Eucharist, there is always the temptation to be spiritually lazy. But you don’t have to be a college educated philosopher to understand the Gospel - you don’t have to be educated at all.

 

[pickguard1]

the concept of “dispensations” in theology is unique to mormonism. the closest thing to it in Christianity is the old and new covenants. (giving you only 2 possible “dispensations” ever)

And of course the idea of a “new dispensation of the Gospel” flies in the face of the scripture from St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians I posted previously. I noticed there hasn’t been any refutation of that scripture - and yet not substantial attempt to justify the LDS’s ignoring it either.

 

[ParkerD]

OK - the passages in Peter are part of the foundation for the Catholic teaching of Purgatory. As I said in a previous post, there is some similarity between Purgatory and the Mormon concept of a “middle state” of some sorts. HOWEVER, Christ, upon his death preached the Gospel NOT to those already in hell, since by their obstinant resistance to God they eternally sealed their fate. What He did was enlighten those souls who had died before His coming and were not fit to enter into the Kingdom of God yet, since they still had the impurity of Original Sin (but who had otherwise led just lives).

I know that LDS probably reject the concept of Original Sin (I don’t know for sure) but regardless of that, does it not make sense that if JESUS is the one who went to that middle place (purgatory, telestial kingdom, whatever you want to call it) to preach the Gospel, what need is there of US to do ANYTHING else? Isn’t it silly to assume that Jesus does not continue to minister to those souls? What could we possible do that He can’t or hasn’t already?

IF there is a baptism of the dead, and those who die without the knowledge of Christ are able to be joined somehow to God through this, I think that ANY evidence points to the fact that Jesus would be the one to do it, indeed, the only one who COULD do it. What need is there for anyone living to go through the motions of a baptism of someone who is already being ministered to by Christ?

Pickguard,
You have made very valid points here.

Perhaps you have heard an expression similar to “God does not do for man what man can do for himself.” Christ could, of course, have stayed on the earth after being resurrected, instead of going to heaven, so that He could keep teaching everyone directly. He could even baptize everyone Himself if He thought it was important to do so.

I think He wanted Peter to grow into his calling (He asked him to feed His sheep), and I think He wanted the members of His flock to grow by being a part of the body of Christ, the body having “need of every member.” It seems to me that every member needs to feel needed, by opportunities for service.

What I’m getting at is that it seems consistent with the Bible and logical to me that if there is ministerial work needing to be done, Christ would delegate that work rather than do it all Himself, for the benefit of all of those who grow by doing service. This concept applies in this world, and logically can apply in “Purgatory” as well (even though Christ could do everything much more perfectly by doing it Himself than any other). I hope this has given you an alternative point of view to think about.

 

[ParkerD]

And of course the idea of a “new dispensation of the Gospel” flies in the face of the scripture from St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians I posted previously. I noticed there hasn’t been any refutation of that scripture - and yet not substantial attempt to justify the LDS’s ignoring it either.

Pickguard,
Paul’s letter to the Galatians says expressly that a disharmony in the beliefs of the people was already happening, and he was warning against that disharmony and its effects. He was especially concerned about the transition from the people hanging onto the law of Moses and the people understanding that Christ brought them a new covenant gospel.

Whenever he wrote an epistle, it seems clear that Paul was trying to get the people he was writing to to understand that revelation and becoming a new creature in Christ (having a spiritual rebirth) were the foundation principles of the new covenant gospel.

 

[zerinus]

You have an awful lot of things mixed up in this post. Don’t you think it would be a good idea to try to understand Mormonism properly before criticizing it?

OK - the passages in Peter are part of the foundation for the Catholic teaching of Purgatory. As I said in a previous post, there is some similarity between Purgatory and the Mormon concept of a “middle state” of some sorts.

I am not sure what you mean by the “middle state”. If you mean one of the lower kingdoms of glory such as the telestial or terrestrial, there is no similarity between that and the purgatory, or indeed the “spirit prison” that Peter was talking about. The “spirit prison” refers to a state or place in the sprit world that the wicked spirits depart into awaiting their resurrection. It is not the final state that they enter into after the resurrection, which includes the three degrees of glory. Jesus after His death went to preach to those people in the spirit world, not to those who had already attained one of the three degrees of glory.

HOWEVER, Christ, upon his death preached the Gospel NOT to those already in hell, since by their obstinant resistance to God they eternally sealed their fate. What He did was enlighten those souls who had died before His coming and were not fit to enter into the Kingdom of God yet, since they still had the impurity of Original Sin (but who had otherwise led just lives).

Well that is not what the scripture says. The scriptures say exactly whom He went to preach to:

1 Peter 3:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

They were sinners. They were wicked people who were destroyed in the Flood. And they were in the spirit world. They were spirits. They hadn’t yet been resurrected. And why would Jesus want to go and preach the gospel to them unless it should benefit them in some way?

I know that LDS probably reject the concept of Original Sin (I don’t know for sure) . . .

We accept the Original Sin partially, but not at you do.

. . . but regardless of that, does it not make sense that if JESUS is the one who went to that middle place (purgatory, telestial kingdom, whatever you want to call it) to preach the Gospel, . . .

He did not go to any of those places to preach the gospel. He went to the “spirits in prison” in the spirit world. The meaning of that is clear enough.

. . . what need is there of US to do ANYTHING else? Isn’t it silly to assume that Jesus does not continue to minister to those souls? What could we possible do that He can’t or hasn’t already?

This is getting boring because you keep on criticizing various aspects of Mormonism without having any idea of what Mormonism teaches or what it is that you are criticizing.

IF there is a baptism of the dead, and those who die without the knowledge of Christ are able to be joined somehow to God through this, I think that ANY evidence points to the fact that Jesus would be the one to do it, indeed, the only one who COULD do it. What need is there for anyone living to go through the motions of a baptism of someone who is already being ministered to by Christ?

I have an easier question for you. What need is there to perform baptisms here on earth?

 

[zerinus]

the concept of “dispensations” in theology is unique to mormonism. the closest thing to it in Christianity is the old and new covenants. (giving you only 2 possible “dispensations” ever)

Actually it is biblical:

Ephesians 1:

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

 

[pickguard1]

I have an easier question for you. What need is there to perform baptisms here on earth?

I’m sorry you have an issue with my approach - and you are correct in that I don’t fully understand all LDS teachings (this is actually the first discussion I’ve ever had with ANY Mormons regarding their religion, so please excuse the gaps in my knowledge. I was merely pointing out what I thought I understood - apparently I am mistaken.

I am however, not mistaken about how the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory works, nor what scriptures the Church has always used to back that doctrine up. It is one thing to criticize my knowledge of Mormonism, and yet another to lump in any misunderstandings there along with the Church’s teaching (not my opinion) about Purgatory.

I leave the rest for later (maybe) but this last one is easy - because Jesus commanded it. He never did so regarding “baptism of the dead.”

 

[pickguard1]

Actually it is biblical:

Ephesians 1:

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Yes, you are right, the dispensation is biblical - in that the “fullness of times” is in reference to the Incarnation of Christ. i.e. the New Testament, not some later testament. Paul here is referencing their own immediate timeframe.

 

[pickguard1]

Pickguard,
Paul’s letter to the Galatians says expressly that a disharmony in the beliefs of the people was already happening, and he was warning against that disharmony and its effects. He was especially concerned about the transition from the people hanging onto the law of Moses and the people understanding that Christ brought them a new covenant gospel.

Whenever he wrote an epistle, it seems clear that Paul was trying to get the people he was writing to to understand that revelation and becoming a new creature in Christ (having a spiritual rebirth) were the foundation principles of the new covenant gospel.

Yes, you are correct. St. Paul’s letters are always written to either admonish or praise the works/circumstances of the churches established in various places. But that doesn’t change the fact that St. Paul made no qualifications regarding proscribing ANY Gospel other than what had already been received.

If the people had remained faithfull to what he had preached to them, no letters of admonision would have been necessary, but since there were false doctrines creeping in, he felt he had to make it absolutely clear what they should NOT do, and that is accept any other gospel than what he had preached.

 

[pickguard1]

Pickguard,
You have made very valid points here.

Perhaps you have heard an expression similar to “God does not do for man what man can do for himself.” Christ could, of course, have stayed on the earth after being resurrected, instead of going to heaven, so that He could keep teaching everyone directly. He could even baptize everyone Himself if He thought it was important to do so.

I think He wanted Peter to grow into his calling (He asked him to feed His sheep), and I think He wanted the members of His flock to grow by being a part of the body of Christ, the body having “need of every member.” It seems to me that every member needs to feel needed, by opportunities for service.

What I’m getting at is that it seems consistent with the Bible and logical to me that if there is ministerial work needing to be done, Christ would delegate that work rather than do it all Himself, for the benefit of all of those who grow by doing service. This concept applies in this world, and logically can apply in “Purgatory” as well (even though Christ could do everything much more perfectly by doing it Himself than any other). I hope this has given you an alternative point of view to think about.

I can see how one might apply the concept of ministry to those already dead - as one of the main points of the doctrine of Purgatory is that we can pray for the souls of the dead to help speed their purification (praying for the dead is biblical) I would say however, that Christ didn’t ever delegate any responsibilities for his Apostles to minister to the dead, only the living, since they were among the living. He chose to take upon Himself the ministering of spirits already dead, since only He can personally be with them.

 

[pickguard1]

He chose to take upon Himself the ministering of spirits already dead, since only He can personally be with them.

Lest anyone misunderstand me, I mean the spirits of those already dead, since spirits can’t die.

 

[swplan76]

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.

One of the most difficult things to swallow about the LDS Church and the Book of Mormon is the racism that so obviously exists within it.

LDS believe in a white Jesus. Its not bad if Jesus was white, but people from that part of the world were not white.

LDS believe that white Jews emigrated from Israel to South America and thrived as a community building a huge empire. They warred against each other and as a result, one Jewish tribe was punished by God as He turned the skin of the bad people dark while the good people were let with white skin.

According to LDS theology, white is good, brown is bad (to put it simply).

Its surprising to me that God would use the color of a person’s skin to shame them.

Something else that is a surprise to me is that these Jews were wiped out and there is no trace of them, but J Smith was led to their book. This is not how God operates in relationship with His people. He keeps His covenants with them. Abraham seemed to have no heir in site, even with the promise that God would make his decendents “like the stars” and God did - Jews are still alive today. Christians are still here. These Jews in the book of Mormon did not survive - God did not protect them. Not characteristic of God.

Translation is a weird thing… The Book of Mormon is written to appear much like the KJV of the Bible. It isn’t written in a dialect that Smith spoke. It seems that He phrased it so that it would appear authentic - like the KJV Bible - that seems dishonest.

Is it true that the LDS believes or believed that Adam is God?

Is it true that the LDS believes that Jesus and Satan are brothers?

Is it true that the LDS believes that God lives on a planet in a distant galaxy?

Is it true that the LDS believes that our ultimate goal is to become gods? Does this mean that we will get our own planets and even our own followers/worshipers/religion?

Is it true that the LDS believes that the afterlife is all about building our own celestial kingdom where we will be with the family we are “sealed to” on earth?
From what I understand the Biblical idea of Heaven and the afterlife are not like that which is taught by LDS.

Is it true that the LDS believes that God/Adam came back to earth to have sex with Mary so she could become pregnant with Jesus? I guess this would mean that Jesus, Satan, Cain and Abel are all brothers…

Those are just some difficulties I have with the LDS Church.