Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[Finrock]

Good evening RebeccaJ. Glad to see you posting!

Parker, This doesn’t address your god who has a god who has a god, etc. If what feels best to you is that we should worship the god of your god, then we should all be worshiping the original god in your pantheon of gods and goddesses.

Mormons don’t believe in a pantheon of gods and goddesses. The 1st Article of Faith is one, of many official sources, that provides the correct Mormon doctrine:

“We abelieve in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Finrock, if a person is “consigned” to only the Holy Spirit, the reality is that you are saying the Holy Spirit is something less. I know this because I know that mormons teach that you have to be perfect to be in the presence of God the Father. You do not have this belief for the Holy Spirit.

Outside of that, there is no Christian thought that divides God such as this. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are GOD. To know one Person of the Holy Trinity is to know God.

So either the telestial or terrestial kingdom is a form of hell, because you have separated people from God. Or, there is one heaven that you have given three names (for no other reason than to create a divine caste system). This is found nowhere in the Bible. Jesus taught two possiblities, several times. His flock will be divided into two. Sheep on the right, goats on the left. People will be judged as righteous, and to be with God (heaven), or not (hell). There is not a 3rd or 4th possibility given by Jesus or the Apostles, anywhere.

I understand that this is what you believe, and I respect your belief.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Eucharisted]

Joseph Smith can’t be a prophet, because he preached a different gospel. I honestly could care less what Mormons think of Catholic beliefs and how the Bible is to be interpreted, because, quite frankly, they are not Christians and they are followers of a false prophet.

Moreover, Joseph Smith’s visions of Jesus and God and of the angel Moroni are private revelations, and since private revelation isn’t binding on Christians, there is no reason whatsoever to worry over it. End of story.

Since Mormons seem to enjoy repeating themselves on every thread about Mormonism (really guys, how many times will you cherry pick from the Church Fathers to “support” your beliefs?), I thought it’d be appropriate to repeat my answer to the OP’s question.

 

[EyesWideShut]

Ah, Godwin’s law raises its inevitable, ugly head…

Has nothing to do with such, just an honest comparison. Both were smooth talkers.

 

[ParkerD]

I have to completely disagree here. Having been raised the daughter of an LDS Stake President and gone to four years of LDS seminary in high school, I feel that I can safely say that Mormon teaching conflicts with the Bible in several places. A good example is the doctrine of eternal marriage. Jesus said that in heaven, people are neither married nor given in marriage. See Mathew 22:30. Clear as day. But, the idea that one will be married to one’s spouse for time and all eternity is one of the central teachings of the LDS church.

The example of the gentiles being baptised points only to the fact that Christ came to fulfill the law. This created a new revelation, but did not conflict with the old law. Jews were still to be circumcised, but gentiles could be adopted into the chosen people by baptism only.

Since Joseph Smith prophesied in such a way that conflicted with established teachings of God, he cannot truly be a prophet of God. Even Christ himself could not deviate from the previous revelations, because God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Miss Michal,
Attendance at LDS seminary is all well and good, and being the daughter of whomever, but Jesus was talking specifically about the specific set of brothers about whom He was asked when He responded to the question of the Sadducees in Matthew 22:30. His use of the word “they” was referring to those brothers, not the whole world.

But I do think it was wisdom in God that that verse be taken and used as the basis of belief about marriage by so many Bible believers. In other words, I think God wanted eternal marriage to be kept sacred as a holy thing not to be imitated, so Jesus was deliberately ambiguous in His reply to the Sadducees.

 

[Finrock]

Well just to be clear I was addressing ParkerD where he said he doesn’t see himself as being"worshiped when exalted.

I understand that you were addressing ParkerD. I was only trying to provide my perspective on this.

Now you (and Parker) can say this is not clear but to me the “same relationship” involves worship. Spin it as you want but the Heavenly Father is worshiped by us, it is part of the relationship.

In my post to you about Vajda’s thesis I said I prefer the early fathers vagueness about divinization to what the LDS spells out,and obviously from your and Parkers reaction the LDS back pedals on.

Why is it ok for you to say " These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father." and then go on to say that it’s all vague and we don’t understand?

I think you missed where I stated that by me pointing out that this question isn’t settled in Mormonism, I wasn’t trying to take away from what you were saying. Many Mormons believe what you’ve expressed. However, there is no spin to say that our understanding of exaltation is limited and narrow. I don’t know exactly what those things mean. I’ve taught and participated in many Gospel Principles classes and I know from experience that many Mormons have different opinions as to what those things mean. That is what I was trying to explain is that if Mormons are vague about this it is because our understanding about it is vague. In my experience, mostly non-Mormons speak about the details of exaltation with absolute certainty, which is ironic. But, this vagueness isn’t just manifested in our conversations with non-Mormons, but even amongst ourselves. There is no concensous with Mormons as to what exactly exaltation means, barring the few things we have definitively spelled out in scripture.

Were you to sit in at an LDS church during a lesson on exaltation, you would probably hear various opinions as to what it means. And, as far as this doctrine is concerned, that is OK in Mormonism because we have no authoritave statement which gives explicit detail as to exactly what all of this means.

I also feel it is a misrepresentation of beliefs when you all imply that exaltation is equivalent to our belief in salvation. Exaltation is something only a few achieve. Only those that attain the highest level of the CK actually receive divinization according to LDS belief, and they only attain that level as married couples. Individuals have no place in this.

I wasn’t aware that we were implying it is the same as the Catholic belief in salvation. The only thing I’ve demonstrated, factually, is that the Greek church fathers believed in an idea of theosis that agrees with the Mormon concept of exaltation in that we can become “gods by grace”. And further, the Greek fathers taught that this idea of being a god isn’t just a neat title, but that we will actually "…be by grace everything that God is by nature" (Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, 65). What Mormonism and the Greek fathers understood on how this status of goodhood is attained is different, but the end result is functionally equivalent; we will be in reality gods, “unoriginate and eternal” ( Pelikan, Spirit of Eastern Christendom, 268).

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, This doesn’t address “your” “god who has a god who has a god, etc.”

Rebecca J,
I’ve written before several times that I don’t accept that theory.You can try and assert that I do, but it holds zero water with me because I don’t at all. Others may. I don’t. I just plain do not.

I worship Heavenly Father, God the Father, and I always will, worlds without end. It’s a simple concept to me.

 

[rinnie]

swplan,
Thanks for this kind comment.

In answer to your earlier comment/question, anyone anywhere in the world can study about the LDS church and be a member if they are sincere in that desire (unless in prison–then they would need to wait until released). All races, all nationalities. There are over a million Latin American members of the LDS church, and nearly a million blacks.

No president of the LDS church said what you had attributed in your comment. Any LDS leaders of the past who had personal racial biases were clearly wrong and had a misunderstanding as well as misjudged a group of people who are every bit as loved by God as anyone, as everyone.

Oh no, SOrry another question. First of all why do I still never get any scripture or answer from your guy’s when I ask. Oh well. Got another problem. The bible says that God comes to all men, and we as Christians should proclaim the Good news to all. Even sinners. especially sinnners. God came to save US all sinners. Now if you are in prison you cannot study the word of God. Another flaw in the faith honey. God never said hold back the word from someone if they are in prison.

 

[zerinus]

Thank you again Finrock for your enlightening posts. With regard to the following quote:

1. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

The critics are not the only ones who have an issue with that one; I do too. I think that the Correlation Committee slipped over this one! There is nothing in LDS scripture that talks about having “spirit children”. The only thing that it says is that those who do not go to the celestial kingdom “cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:4). That is not the same thing as having “spirit children”. We don’t know how that “increase” is obtained.

Another scripture that is relevant to this is D&C 132:30, where it talks about Abraham and his seed, that “out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; . . .” Again, it says nothing about having “spirit children”. That promise could be fulfilled in any number of ways other than having “spirit children”. So I think the manual is at fault with that. The good news is that there are not that many such faults in the manual. The bad news is that one is enough for the critics to jump on; therefore one is too many!

 

[majick275]

Good evening RebeccaJ. Glad to see you posting!

Mormons don’t believe in a pantheon of gods and goddesses. The 1st Article of Faith is one, of many official sources, that provides the correct Mormon doctrine:

“We abelieve in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”

Kind Regards,
Finrock

this is misleading at best. notice this article of faith does not in any way restrict belief to ONLY God the Father, Jesus and the holy spirit, it merely affirms a belief in them. while i would hesitate to use the term pantheon (since it implies a group of gods over this world, all of whom can be worshipped/prayed to) mormon doctrine certainly DOES involve more Gods than just Elohim, Jesus and their “shared mind”. it involves a progression in which Elohim has a God who had a God before him, etc., etc. forever and provides for this endlessly moving forward as well. Logic dictates that in this model there are “sibling Gods” with each celestial generation as well. this gives endless worlds endless gods.

 

[ParkerD]

Oh no, SOrry another question. First of all why do I still never get any scripture or answer from your guy’s when I ask. Oh well. Got another problem. The bible says that God comes to all men, and we as Christians should proclaim the Good news to all. Even sinners. especially sinnners. God came to save US all sinners. Now if you are in prison you cannot study the word of God. Another flaw in the faith honey. God never said hold back the word from someone if they are in prison.

Rinnie,
I’m sorry to have given a wrong impression, if I did. I was talking about baptism, not about having the opportunity to hear the Gospel and to repent. I have personal friends who teach as volunteers in prisons, and love their experience there. (They share general Christian gospel principles and values and ethics.)

The reason baptism would generally not be possible is that the “debt to society” is not fully paid until they are released. This is not being judgmental; it is abiding by the laws and judicial system constitutionally established, and recognizing that full repentance includes restitution as fully as is possible.

 

[swplan76]

**swplan, the last line pf your post has spoiled all your show. You are either a LIAR or a completely un-informed person. You have no knowledge of any religion. All your talk about the mormons is also worthless, has no value.

Try to remember …

**

Hi Planten,

    I think the spirit in which your words are written say a lot about you.  Its sad that you don't appeal to logic, but start off your enlarged, bold, purple message with insults.  I'd prefer to keep that kind of behavior out of this kind of forum - it doesn't lead anywhere, but into more of the same frustration.

For others,
I would like to explain for you why Planten is unhappy with me. In another thread on Islam, I spoke honestly about some things he/she, as a Muslim does not appreciate and has either tracked me to this thread, or stumbled upon my post here and has decided to attempt to ambush my post. Very sad.

 

[ParkerD]

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,
I think the point was about a “testimony”, meaning “sure knowledge by a personal witness of the Holy Ghost to the person” such as Peter had when he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” which Jesus said had been revealed to Peter by Father in Heaven. Certainly the scriptures are given to us to be shared and loved by all.

A great scripture about personal testimony is found in Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 2:

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
…
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I hope this has clarified, and thanks for your comments. Have a good day.

 

[swplan76]

swplan,
Hi again…

You may have heard of a “planet” called Kolob, which is supposedly near where Heavenly Father dwells, but since He can move at will throughout the universe I see little importance in the “name” of a planet where He might reside.
…
Satan is totally against the free agency of any spirit or soul. He seeks to rule by force.

Hey Parker,

   Thanks for your clarifications!   The reason I was interested in hearing the name of the planet again was because it was something that surprised me when I first heard it.  There are so many things that are difficult to process about the LDS church for me.  Kolob is a small thing, but still one among many of those things that are strange (for me).

   CS Lewis is an interesting writer.  In 'Screwtape Letters' Lewis writes,

"We (Satan and the demons) want cattle who can finally become food; he (God) wants servants who can finally become his children. We(Satan and the demons) want to suck in, he(God) wants to give out. We(Satan and the demons) are empty and would be filled; he(God) is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself: the Enemy(God) wants a world full of beings united to him but still distinct."
I think you are right, Satan wants to dominate us, but he wants us to think its our own idea. If we catch on, then we will resist him. I don’t know if Lewis has it all figured right, but he presents the idea that Satan is presently, throughout time, trying to deceive us, not so we will suffer here, but so we will be fat for damnation - Satan wants to keep us dumb and distract us from discovering who God is and what God might really want to do with our lives - he wants us to lose our identity and potential, so he can have us for eternity.
Later,
SW

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca J,
I’ve written before several times that I don’t accept that theory.You can try and assert that I do, but it holds zero water with me because I don’t at all. Others may. I don’t. I just plain do not.

I worship Heavenly Father, God the Father, and I always will, worlds without end. It’s a simple concept to me.

I reject it as well, along with everything else JS “theorized”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Good evening RebeccaJ. Glad to see you posting!

Mormons don’t believe in a pantheon of gods and goddesses. The 1st Article of Faith is one, of many official sources, that provides the correct Mormon doctrine:

“We abelieve in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”

Kind Regards,
Finrock

hi Finrock, you do realize that Mormonism teaches many gods, with the idea you only worship one? Even in this article it is talking about three separate gods, not the One True God. Of these three gods you only worship one of them.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But I do think it was wisdom in God that that verse be taken and used as the basis of belief about marriage by so many Bible believers. In other words, I think God wanted eternal marriage to be kept sacred as a holy thing not to be imitated, so Jesus was deliberately ambiguous in His reply to the Sadducees.

Gnosticism is a heresy, always has been.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I understand that this is what you believe, and I respect your belief.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Do you understand the truth of what Jesus taught?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Of course he preached a different gospel than the one that Catholics preach. So do Protestants but you don’t automatically say that they are false because of that.

Yeah, we do.

Also, where do you get the idea that Joseph Smith’s visions of Jesus and God are private revelations? Apparently Joseph Smith thought differently.

What reason is there to believe he had any visions at all?

And what of the idea that God is continuing to give revelation? Do you believe that God spoke to ancient people but not now? Why?

Yes, God reveals Himself at all times.

Please point out the verse in the Bible where Jesus himself only allowed people to have one wife.

Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11–12

Yeah, it is rather sad that there is such contempt for Mormons among some people. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing but why does it seem like some people on this board pretty much hate Mormons or Mormonism?

Disagreement is not an indication of hate or contempt. Why the need to paint it that way?

What is so illogical about a lack of belief in a deity? If you ask me, most Atheists are some of the most logical people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. They seem to put a great emphasis on logic.

Atheism places all hope in humans. I find this to be illogical, and ill-advised.

 

[pickguard1]

There is nothing wrong with not understanding something provided to try to understand first before criticizing. We understand first and criticize later, not criticize first and understand later.

As to the “criticize after understanding,” I was simply alluding to what I perceived as similarities and differences, and then arguing my point. The concept of telestial/terrestrial kingdoms in LDS theology IS similar to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, in that both religions have a concept of there not necessarily being an immediate assignment to eternal glory upon judgement. That is all, nothing more. Beyond that, I agree they are completely different. My point was based on the Catholic understanding of Purgatory, and how I feel (and believe) that it is more representative of the scripture passage that had been quoted about Jesus preaching to the souls in purgatory than what LDS teach.
zerinus;5306569:

He did however say, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16);

and, “Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

Yes, but I would argue then, that baptising by proxy is no baptism at all. First, baptism is a highly personal sacrament - it can’t be done in someone’s place, just as one can’t confess another’s sins and get absolution for them by proxy. Second, the primary effect of baptism is the cleansing of the soul of the stain of original sin, secondary graces help that soul preserve its purity. Someone who has died has already been judged. They were, at the moment of their death, either deemed worthy to enter God’s kingdom (either immediately or after purification), or they were deemed not worthy. Thus, someone who is dead has no need of baptism, since it could do no good in the first place.

If, for example, those who die from abortion, or in the farthest reaches of the world where Christianity hasn’t come yet, are to enter into heaven by merit of not having commited actual sin, or having repented of it - it is not due to us baptising them, but due to the infinite mercy and justice of God, who judges them instantly upon their death.

There is no need to be concerned about the eternal fate of our ancestors, because there is nothing that we can do about it.