False Prophesies of LDS Prophets

[Telstar]

Humm…what would you think of Jesus if you were a Pharisee? Christ denounced wrong beliefs of some Jewish sects. Paul also did similarly. Were they farting in the room?

The Jewish sects were the established religion and Christ denounced the established religion that was there for almost 2 thousand years and founded his own church with his own doctrine…I can understand why people would get upset.

First of all, I would hope to God that I would never have been a Pharisee. :nope:

The beliefs that Jesus ‘denounced’ were the ones that had been added (or changed) to what God had Commanded the Jews to believe. Are you claiming to be on the same level as Jesus, or even Paul, because you*** think*** you’re working to do the same kind of thing they did, by trying to tear down the Catholic Church to replace it with Mormonism? God forbid! (I sincerely hope that’s not what you’re trying to do, because that’s like walking on spiritual quicksand, because there’s nowhere to go but down… quickly. JMHO)

Jesus (being the Only Son of God) did not denounce the Jewish Faith, He fulfilled it! The Old Covenant was fulfilled and the New Covenant was established by Jesus. The Old Covenant was given to the Jews, but the New Covenant was given to Christians through His Church. That Covenant has never been interrupted since He established His Church through His Apostles, and it has been continuously passed on to the rest of the world for the past 2000 years. Whether you want to believe it or not is your decision, but it is the truth.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That Covenant has*** never*** been interrupted since He established His Church through His Apostles, and it has been continuously passed on to the rest of the world for the past 2000 years. Whether you want to believe it or not is your decision, but it is the truth.

Just as God never broke His covenant with Israel through all their infidelities, He stuck with it as promised until the New Covenant through Christ. The covenant theology of the LDS makes no sense to me, God broke His covenant with his people over a supposed apostasy, something He never did before through all of Israels apostasies. And then when He re-establishes it, it’s marriage. Really? Marriage? We go from I will be your God and you will be my people, to marriage. That makes no sense at all. How in the world is marriage the “new” covenant, when was marriage a covenant between a nation and God? I find it ludicrous that the new covenant spoken of by Christ at the last supper would be marriage.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Humm…what would you think of Jesus if you were a Pharisee? Christ denounced wrong beliefs of some Jewish sects. Paul also did similarly. Were they farting in the room?

The Jewish sects were the established religion and Christ denounced the established religion that was there for almost 2 thousand years and founded his own church with his own doctrine…I can understand why people would get upset.

More from your imagination.

 

[TexanKnight]

I am waiting, Evan…

 

[LivingWaters7]

Mormonism, as you know, claims restoration of what was lost and corrupted. Mormonism has not only provided biblical and historical evidences of an apostasy, but also the restoration

Please provide historical evidence for a singular, cohesive, ancient church that had the beliefs of Mormonism that are supposedly “restored”. Essentially, provide historical evidence for the ancient Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints.

 

[Sabacthani]

Please provide historical evidence for a singular, cohesive, ancient church that had the beliefs of Mormonism that are supposedly “restored”. Essentially, provide historical evidence for the ancient Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints.

Peter’s references to baptism for the dead.

 

[TexanKnight]

Ok…tell you what. IF it is a "restoration, you should be able to easily prove that is is exactly like the early church…right? So…show me

1. Where the early church had 15 apostles like you do
2. Where the early church had Stakes
3. Where the early church had presidents
4. Where the early church had Relief Society.
5. Where the early did marriages for the dead
6. Where the early church decided to have temples all over Christendom
7. Where the early church refused to let blacks hold the priesthood
8. Where the early church was racist against blacks
9. Where the early church had blood oaths
10. Where the early church had its leaders steal wives from other members
11. Where the early church used bread and water in its meetings
12. Where the early church assigned topics for children to give talks during the weekly meeting
13. Where the early church had teenagers blessing the Eucharist
14. Where the early leaders of the early church tried to convince other church members to wife swap
15. where the early Church “prophets” set themselves up as mayors and generals in full military garb
16. Where the early church prophets demanded that the members build houses for them because God ordered it
17. Where there were “wards” in the early church
18. Where only affluent members were chosen by God to lead.
19. Where the early church invested in huge financial projects like malls
20. Where the early church hired assassins like BY did.

Now, I know you will dodge this challenge like you have dodged all challenges. But, I am truly anxious for you to show me where these things existed in the early church you allegedly have restored

I will be waiting.

 

[Telstar]

Just as God never broke His covenant with Israel through all their infidelities, He stuck with it as promised until the New Covenant through Christ. The covenant theology of the LDS makes no sense to me, God broke His covenant with his people over a supposed apostasy, something He never did before through all of Israels apostasies. And then when He re-establishes it, it’s marriage. Really? Marriage? We go from I will be your God and you will be my people, to marriage. That makes no sense at all. How in the world is marriage the “new” covenant, when was marriage a covenant between a nation and God? I find it ludicrous that the new covenant spoken of by Christ at the last supper would be marriage.

Absolutely! How many times did God put up with the Jews when they adopted the worship of pagan “gods”? How many times did He have to call them back to worshiping Him? But, He still kept His promise to send them a Savior and they even rejected*** Him! *** So, why would God abandon the people of the Church that Jesus established, who always remained faithful to Him? Were they worshiping another God? Did they *all *abandon Jesus at any time? Certainly not! If they had, then we wouldn’t know anything about Jesus. He might have only been a small footnote in Roman history, if even that, if the Church had truly been lost.

God is always faithful and patient, no matter what men might do to fall out of favor with Him. But, He certainly wouldn’t have waited 2000 years to ‘restore’ something that was never lost to begin with. He most certainly never waited 2000 years to draw the Jews back to Him in the Old Covenant, so why would He do it in the New Covenant? It doesn’t make any sense.

I’m with you on marriage being the new ‘covenant’ thing, too. That’s makes even less sense than God abandoning the Church after Jesus promised He would never leave it.

 

[Sabacthani]

1. Where the early church refused to let blacks hold the priesthood
2. Where the early church was racist against blacks

You realize that the LDS church has officially stated that it was wrong about that, right? That there was no evidence of any revelation to BY to take the priesthood away from blacks?

Where the early church invested in huge financial projects like malls

What’s wrong with that? Doesn’t the Catholic Church invest in huge financial projects?

“blood oaths”

That term doesn’t mean what you think it means.

1. Where only affluent members were chosen by God to lead.

That’s not true of either church, but the early church leaders included a disproportionate number of wealthy and privileged. Matthew was a tax collector, which makes him very wealthy indeed. Peter owned his own fishing business, including a fishing boat big enough to fit all the disciples. Paul was a disciple of Gamaliel AND a Roman citizen – born Roman, in fact. Luke was a Physician. I get the impression that James and John came from less privileged backgrounds but I can’t be sure. The gospels don’t give backgrounds on everyone, but the ones they give backgrounds on are relatively wealthy and privileged.

Not everything that happened in the early day church was good, nor is everything that happens in the LDS church, obviously.

1. Where the early church hired assassins like BY did.

Say what?

1. Where the early church used bread and water in its meetings

That’s an oddity of the LDS, and section 89 says it’s specific to our time.

 

[TexanKnight]

You realize that the LDS church has officially stated that it was wrong about that, right? That there was no evidence of any revelation to BY to take the priesthood away from blacks?

I understand that there are many teachings, doctrine and prophesies from BY that Mormons now try to claim were not doctrine, teachings and prophesies. It is further proof the LDS is false. But, it does NOT take away the fact it was a doctrine in the LDS Church and so my challenge remains.

What’s wrong with that? Doesn’t the Catholic Church invest in huge financial projects?

The Catholic Church does pretend to be a “restored” church. And the deflection is noted

“blood oaths”

That term doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Um…yes it does. I made the blood oaths in many temples, as I “suffered my life to be taken”

That’s not true of either church, but the early church leaders included a disproportionate number of wealthy and privileged. Matthew was a tax collector, which makes him very wealthy indeed. Peter owned his own fishing business, including a fishing boat big enough to fit all the disciples. Paul was a disciple of Gamaliel AND a Roman citizen – born Roman, in fact. Luke was a Physician. I get the impression that James and John came from less privileged backgrounds but I can’t be sure. The gospels don’t give backgrounds on everyone, but the ones they give backgrounds on are relatively wealthy and privileged.

No comparison, and you know it. Very weak, there

Not everything that happened in the early day church was good, nor is everything that happens in the LDS church, obviously.

Say what?

Guess you never heard of Brigham’s Avenging Angels…

That’s an oddity of the LDS, and section 89 says it’s specific to our time.

Then it is not a restoration. And the reasoning show an incredible lack of faith.

Nice picking and choosing…lack of real answers, deflections, and stepping in for Evan, who is obviously having trouble finding things to cut and paste

 

[iepuras]

Absolutely! How many times did God put up with the Jews when they adopted the worship of pagan “gods”? How many times did He have to call them back to worshiping Him? But, He still kept His promise to send them a Savior and they even rejected*** Him! *** So, why would God abandon the people of the Church that Jesus established, who always remained faithful to Him? Were they worshiping another God? Did they *all *abandon Jesus at any time? Certainly not! If they had, then we wouldn’t know anything about Jesus. He might have only been a small footnote in Roman history, if even that, if the Church had truly been lost.

God is always faithful and patient, no matter what men might do to fall out of favor with Him. But, He certainly wouldn’t have waited 2000 years to ‘restore’ something that was never lost to begin with. He most certainly never waited 2000 years to draw the Jews back to Him in the Old Covenant, so why would He do it in the New Covenant? It doesn’t make any sense.

I’m with you on marriage being the new ‘covenant’ thing, too. That’s makes even less sense than God abandoning the Church after Jesus promised He would never leave it.

One can argue that the new covenant is a marriage - a marriage between Jesus Christ and the Church. The old covenant was a marriage covenant between God and Israel. Imagery of the marriage covenant between God and His people (the Church) is throughout the Bible
from the Song of Songs to Revelation. Jesus is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride. And of course, He has ALWAYS been faithful. (See Brant Pitre’s new book “Jesus the Bridegroom” for more information).

The new covenant is most certainly NOT polygamous marriages for eternity.

 

[Sabacthani]

I understand that there are many teachings, doctrine and prophesies from BY that Mormons now try to claim were not doctrine, teachings and prophesies. It is further proof the LDS is false.

Your idea of what is LDS doctrine is false. A prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet. And official procedure for determining if he’s spoken as a prophet is UNANIMOUS approval and agreement by the first presidency, and the full quorum of the twelve, and then submission to common consent. That’s true of the teachings of Joseph Smith as well as Brigham Young. The teachings of BY that were made official are in the D&C. Most of his theories and statements never had a unanimous quorum, and therefore were never canonical.

What’s wrong with that? Doesn’t the Catholic Church invest in huge financial projects?

The Catholic Church does pretend to be a “restored” church. And the deflection is noted

Deflection? I thought it goes without saying that we don’t have the financial records of the early day church. We do know that they pooled all their money. The story of Annias and Saphira indicate that members were invited to participate in something like the LDS used to call the United Order, where the members liquidated all their assets and gave EVERYTHING to the church. We know some of that money was used to do charitable deeds, but I’d be willing to be that some of it was used to invest in businesses that provided a steady stream of money. It’s just good business sense, and Peter was a businessman before he was an apostle.

That’s not true of either church, but the early church leaders included a disproportionate number of wealthy and privileged. Matthew was a tax collector, which makes him very wealthy indeed. Peter owned his own fishing business, including a fishing boat big enough to fit all the disciples. Paul was a disciple of Gamaliel AND a Roman citizen – born Roman, in fact. Luke was a Physician. I get the impression that James and John came from less privileged backgrounds but I can’t be sure. The gospels don’t give backgrounds on everyone, but the ones they give backgrounds on are relatively wealthy and privileged.

No comparison, and you know it. Very weak, there

All the information we have on the background of the early day apostles shows disproportionate wealth and privilege. That’s not a weak answer. It’s the only intelligent answer under the circumstances. If you are aware of additional sources on the backgrounds of the early church leaders, please share.

Guess you never heard of Brigham’s Avenging Angels…

Are they related to Charlie’s Angels?

Nice picking and choosing.

You are upset that I didn’t have answers to a lot of your questions?

…lack of real answers, deflections, and stepping in for Evan, who is obviously having trouble finding things to cut and paste

Who is Evan?

Is Tex always this unpleasant, pushy, and accusing, or just with folks that disagree with him about the mormons?

That’s an oddity of the LDS, and section 89 says it’s specific to our time.

Then it is not a restoration

That is correct, Tex. Section 89 was not a restoration. The church investment in the Mall was not a restoration. Joseph Smith’s prophesy on the Civil War was not a restoration. A restored church does not necessarily adhere to everything of the previous dispensation.

 

[zaffiroborant]

One can argue that the new covenant is a marriage - a marriage between Jesus Christ and the Church. The old covenant was a marriage covenant between God and Israel. Imagery of the marriage covenant between God and His people (the Church) is throughout the Bible
from the Song of Songs to Revelation. Jesus is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride. And of course, He has ALWAYS been faithful. (See Brant Pitre’s new book “Jesus the Bridegroom” for more information).

The new covenant is most certainly NOT polygamous marriages for eternity.

Yes marriage imagery is certainly there but no where has the marriage between a husband and wife been seen as His covenant with his people. It makes no sense to say that an individual marriage of a man and a woman is God’s New Covenant with humanity. Human marriages are used as metaphor and simile for God’s covenant not the covenant itself.

 

[Telstar]

Peter’s references to baptism for the dead.

Can you please show where that is in the Bible? I did a search but found nothing from Peter about it. There is a quote from Paul to the Corinthians:

DR- 1 Corinthians "[29] Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them?"

Here, it’s believed that Paul is referring to the ***Gnostic ***practice of proxy baptizing for the dead, who were later denounced by the Church as heretical. But, it was never approved or practiced by the Apostles or the early Church. Baptism is only necessary for the living. When someone is already dead, they don’t need to be baptized, so it’s totally unnecessary to perform a proxy ritual.

God will judge all souls by the way they lived their lives, even those who were unbaptized. If it was necessary for all souls to be baptized by proxy, what would happen to the souls that were long forgotten? Would they have to go to hell, even if they were very good people in life? Did John ever baptize anyone by proxy for Moses, or David or any other dead prophets, or other Jews? No. Was there ever any mention of it by Jesus in the Gospels? No. Didn’t Elias and Moses appear with Jesus at the transfiguration? Yes. How could they if they weren’t already saved, even though they were never baptized and Jesus was still alive?

I believe Paul’s point in saying it is that even the Gnostics, who were wrong about so many other things, believed in the resurrection of the dead. That was the main subject he was talking about in the entire chapter.

 

[RebeccaJ]

All the information we have on the background of the early day apostles shows disproportionate wealth and privilege. That’s not a weak answer. It’s the only intelligent answer under the circumstances. If you are aware of additional sources on the backgrounds of the early church leaders, please share.

The 12 were called to leave everything they had to follow Jesus. Jesus specifically states, in the parable of the rich man, that saving the rich is like pulling a camel through the eye of a needle. This isn’t a problem specific to LDS members. Building up wealth is one of the temptations of Satan. The thing is, to stop for a while and think about what you are doing, and ask yourself what in your life aligns to the life of Christ, and what does not.

A billion dollar investment in a mall gives an indication that no one in charge of your church is asking this question. But as has been pointed out by Kathleen, this world is materialistic and that orientation towards the material things is a temptation for all who seek to follow Christ.

The striking difference with Mormon teachings is that Mormonism teaches, contrary to the teachings of Jesus, that material gain comes from God, and is therefore desirable.

Is Tex always this unpleasant, pushy, and accusing, or just with folks that disagree with him about the mormons?

Why do Mormons always deflect the conversation to attacking the poster?

That is correct, Tex. Section 89 was not a restoration. The church investment in the Mall was not a restoration. Joseph Smith’s prophesy on the Civil War was not a restoration. A restored church does not necessarily adhere to everything of the previous dispensation.

Adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ is an eternal concept. A so-called restoration that is in direct conflict with Him, should make you go “hmmmmm”, don’t you think?

 

[Stephen168]

1. Where the early church refused to let blacks hold the priesthood

1. Where the early church was racist against blacks

We are talking about a practice of Mormonism, not teaching. The evidence that Mormonism was racist and withheld the priesthood from blacks is that it in fact withheld the priesthood from blacks.
So you didn’t answer the question, where is this practiced in the Former-Day-Saint Church.

1. Where the early church invested in huge financial projects like malls

Sabacthani;12026519:

What’s wrong with that? Doesn’t the Catholic Church invest in huge financial projects?

Being forced to invest in projects in order to get to heaven doesn’t seem right to me. No, the Catholic Church doesn’t do that.

1. Where the early church used bread and water in its meetings

Sabacthani;12026519:

That’s an oddity of the LDS, and section 89 says it’s specific to our time.

As we have pointed out, not only in post #127, but also post #112. Mormonism can not be found in a Former-Day-Saint Church and most of its teachings and practices are an “oddity”…”specific to our times" because Mormonism is an invention not a restoration.

 

[Sabacthani]

Is Tex always this unpleasant, pushy, and accusing, or just with folks that disagree with him about the mormons?
Why do Mormons always deflect the conversation to attacking the poster?

You mean like you just did?

The 12 were called to leave everything they had to follow Jesus.

Yes, but IIRC Peter still had a fishing boat after Jesus was crucified.

A billion dollar investment in a mall gives an indication that no one in charge of your church is asking this question

I think that statement says more about your thinking process than about the church decision process. If the answer isn’t what you think it should be, that indicates that no one asked the question?

The striking difference with Mormon teachings is that Mormonism teaches, contrary to the teachings of Jesus, that material gain comes from God, and is therefore desirable.

I have no idea what you think you’re referring to. Citations would help identify what you mean when you say “Mormonism teaches.”

 

[Stephen168]

please provide historical evidence for a** singular, cohesive, ancient church **

that had the **beliefs **of mormonism that are supposedly “restored”. Essentially, provide historical evidence for the ancient church of jesus christ of former-day saints.
sabacthani;12026285:

peter’s references to baptism for the dead.

 

[Sabacthani]

We are talking about a practice of Mormonism, not teaching. The evidence that Mormonism was racist and withheld the priesthood from blacks is that it in fact withheld the priesthood from blacks.
So you didn’t answer the question, where is this practiced in the Former-Day-Saint Church.

That is correct. I did not answer the question. I will if you ask me politely.

As we have pointed out, not only in post #127, but also post #112. Mormonism can not be found in a Former-Day-Saint Church and most of its teachings and practices are an “oddity”…”specific to our times" because Mormonism is an invention not a restoration.

After listening to Rebecca, I’m starting to think that “Mormonism” can not be found in a Latter-Day Saint Church either.

 

[TexanKnight]

Your idea of what is LDS doctrine is false. A prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet. And official procedure for determining if he’s spoken as a prophet is UNANIMOUS approval and agreement by the first presidency, and the full quorum of the twelve, and then submission to common consent. That’s true of the teachings of Joseph Smith as well as Brigham Young. The teachings of BY that were made official are in the D&C. Most of his theories and statements never had a unanimous quorum, and therefore were never canonical.

Wrong. BY was clear that what HE said was doctrine when he preached. Also, other prophets have stated it is not necessary for doctrine or prophesy to always be preceded by “thus saith the Lord” Your comments are typical LDS efforts to backtrack the horrible doctrine of BY. And it is further proof the LDS Church is false

Deflection?

Yes. Deflection. It is a common method of Mormons, when they know they have no answers to use the 4th grade argument “I know you are but what am I” and deflect to the Catholic Church.

All the information we have on the background of the early day apostles shows disproportionate wealth and privilege. That’s not a weak answer. It’s the only intelligent answer under the circumstances. If you are aware of additional sources on the backgrounds of the early church leaders, please share.

I am not the one who claims to be a restoration. Your answer is sufficient to show you cannot be a restoration of you can;t point to the similarity.

Are they related to Charlie’s Angels?

Your attempt to deflect from Brigham’s Destroying Angels and their assassinations is duly noted

You are upset that I didn’t have answers to a lot of your questions?

nope. In fact, very pleased.

Who is Evan?

My challenge was to him. You responded

Is Tex always this unpleasant, pushy, and accusing, or just with folks that disagree with him about the mormons?

lol…do mormons always play the victim card when they have no answers?

That is correct, Tex. Section 89 was not a restoration. The church investment in the Mall was not a restoration. Joseph Smith’s prophesy on the Civil War was not a restoration. A restored church does not necessarily adhere to everything of the previous dispensation.

Jesus was clear about the Eucharist. It was js who turned it into prison food of bread and water. NOT a restoration. A false church