False Prophesies of LDS Prophets

[Stephen168]

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.

And, like Christ, they were all single.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Peter’s references to baptism for the dead.

That doesn’t demonstrate an ancient Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints (especially when the connection is made between that verse and the Deuterocanonical reference to prayers for the dead).

LDS apologists will cite random references from all over the place in an attempt to prove a “restoration”. See Restoring the Ancient Church for an example, which is filled with Gnostic references, as well as out of context ECF proof texts. What they can’t do, and which is my point, is point to an ancient Church with those beliefs and say “that is what we’re restoring”. The reason is because the most ancient writings we have of early Christianity point to a Churchwith Catholic/Orthodox beliefs, and the beliefs that LDS decry as “apostate” find clear continuity with ancient Judaism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You mean like you just did?

The deflection from the subject is not mine, it is yours, which I pointed out. BTW, discussing each other rather than the topic is against forum rules.

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

They thought Jesus was dead, ie, the Master who they were following, they believed could be followed no more. They came to understand, and eventually all but St. John were martyred. They gave up everything including their lives.

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 topic of this thread is not TK, or myself, or anyone else who is posting. If you can’t respond to what I say, please don’t respond at all.

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

Pick any faith promoting story about paying tithing.

Wealth of a nation is an indication of righteousness throughout the Book of Mormon.

Mormons aren’t unique in this teaching.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

“The atonement (reconciliation with God) is interpreted to include the alleviation of sickness and poverty, which are viewed as curses to be broken by faith.”

 

[LivingWaters7]

Speaking of the ancient and Biblical nature of Catholic beliefs that LDS see as apostate, just got Scott Hahn’s latest book in the mail, Angels and Saints: A Biblical Guide to Friendship with God’s Holy Ones.

http://cdn-media.downpour.com/b/9/b94u/b94u-square-400.jpg

 

[LivingWaters7]

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.

So if the way to determine when a prophet is speaking as a prophet is when he has unanimous approval and agreement by the FP, and the Q12, then submission to common consent, when was the last time an LDS prophet (are you speaking of only the President, or the other 14 prophets, seers, and revelators as well) spoke as a prophet?

Whether or not his statements are canonical is not relevant, and is a deflection from the matter. LDS claim to have “living prophets”, and that we are to follow them and listen to their counsel. LDS study the teachings of these prophets, many of these teachings never went through the process you describe, nor are they canonized in the D&C. Further, LDS are taught to come listen to living prophets during General Conference, and that the inspired words of the prophets are heard at Conferences, and these words become scripture to us. Just like how LDS are listening to the teachings of the current prophets, seers, and revelators, the older LDS were listening to the teachings of Brigham Young and others that are now dismissed as “theories” and “opinions” (even when, for example, one “theory”, the Adam-God teaching, was taught in the LDS temple Endowment).

 

[Telstar]

And, like Christ, they were all single.

Actually, Peter was married. There is no mention of children, but:

Matthew 8:14 "And when Jesus was come into Peter’ s house, he saw his wife’ s mother lying, and sick of a fever: [15] And he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she arose and ministered to them."

There’s no mention of any of the others being married, though. And, Peter’s wife might have been one of the women that also followed them, along with His mother, Mary, and Mary Magdalen.

 

[Sabacthani]

And, like Christ, they were all single.

Nope. Peter was married.

We don’t know if Christ was single. The scripture does not say. According to the tradition of the day, do you know who was supposed to provide wine at a wedding?

 

[Sabacthani]

So if the way to determine when a prophet is speaking as a prophet is when he has unanimous approval and agreement by the FP, and the Q12, then submission to common consent, when was the last time an LDS prophet (are you speaking of only the President, or the other 14 prophets, seers, and revelators as well) spoke as a prophet?.

That’s how to determine if a statement is canonical. If it’s canonical, that’s definitive approval that the prophet was speaking as a prophet.

LDS study the teachings of these prophets, many of these teachings never went through the process you describe, nor are they canonized in the D&C.

If a statement hasn’t been subject to that process, then one can have an opinion that it’s correct. I happen to think that the Proclamation on the Family is true doctrine and divine, even though it’s not canonical yet as it hasn’t been submitted to common consent.

The book "teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith is a particularly sloppy bit of unverified hearsay within hearsay. I admire the Catholic discipline for verifying claims of miracles and all that. Mormon scholarship could seriously use the Catholic example.

The topic of this thread is not TK, or myself, or anyone else who is posting.

Try to remember that while you’re posting, Rebecca, and we’ll get along swimmingly.

 

[Telstar]

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

That was within days after Jesus was crucified, when He appeared to them as they were fishing. But, there is no further mention of it after the Apostles & disciples sold all of their earthly goods to follow Him, which happened after He had ascended into Heaven.

 

[Sabacthani]

That was within days after Jesus was crucified, when He appeared to them as they were fishing. But, there is no further mention of it after the Apostles & disciples sold all of their earthly goods to follow Him, which happened after He had ascended into Heaven.

Ah. Thank you for clarifying that. Do you have a reference? I have long wondered about that. What you say makes sense.

 

[Sabacthani]

Pick any faith promoting story about paying tithing.

Wealth of a nation is an indication of righteousness throughout the Book of Mormon.

Mormons aren’t unique in this teaching.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

“The atonement (reconciliation with God) is interpreted to include the alleviation of sickness and poverty, which are viewed as curses to be broken by faith.”

OK. Now I see what you’re saying. Yes, there’s a tendency among many church members towards a smug prosperity theology, and I agree that it’s counter to Jesus’ teachings. But your statement that Wealth of a nation is an indication of righteousness throughout the Book of Mormon. is very misleading. Keeping the commandments bring prosperity to *society *in the book of Mormon, but it’s not described as an indicator of *personal *righteousness. Furthermore the Book of Mormon emphasizes that material prosperity tends to lead to pride, which leads to destruction.

 

[Telstar]

Nope. Peter was married.

We don’t know if Christ was single. The scripture does not say. According to the tradition of the day, do you know who was supposed to provide wine at a wedding?

To answer the part in bold, we most certainly do know that He was single because there is never any mention of Him having a wife, anywhere in the Bible. I’m pretty sure that would have been mentioned somewhere in the entire New Testament, if He was. If you can find it, please, post it.

To answer your question, the groom provided the wine. But, if you read the Biblical account of the wedding, Mary only approached Jesus after the wine ran out.

DR John 2: "[1] And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. [2] And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. [3] And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. [4] And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. [5] His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

[6] Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. [7] Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. [8] And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. [9] And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom, [10] And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now."

If it was Jesus’ wedding, He would not have needed to be invited, nor would He ask His Mother: “Woman, what is that to me and to thee?”

My apologies if I ruined your inferred theory that it was Jesus’ wedding.

 

[Sabacthani]

Excellent answer on the Cana wedding. You have convinced me thoroughly that was not Jesus’ wedding.

To answer the part in bold, we most certainly do know that He was single because there is never any mention of Him having a wife, anywhere in the Bible.

It never mentions him inhaling, either. Would it shake your faith if evidence came out that he was married?

If it were important that he was single, then the scriptures would have stated that he never took a wife.

The fact that it says nothing about it suggests that it’s not an important issue; that Jesus’ marital status is simply none of our business.

 

[Stephen168]

Actually, Peter was married. There is no mention of children, but:

Matthew 8:14 "And when Jesus was come into Peter’ s house, he saw his wife’ s mother lying, and sick of a fever: [15] And he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she arose and ministered to them.”

I’ve met two widows who both refer to their died husband’s mother as their mother in law. Clearly, Peter had been married, but not married at the time he was a member of the Twelve. Also some early Church writing said Philip had children, but not married when he was a member of the Twelve.

Nope. Peter was married.

Nope. Not married.
Also none of them, like Christ, were polygamists.

 

[Sabacthani]

I’ve met two widows who both refer to their died husband’s mother as their mother in law. Clearly, Peter had been married, but not married at the time he was a member of the Twelve.

That’s a retcon, like the silly mormons I know that argue that the wine Jesus drank was grape juice.

Also none of them, like Christ, were polygamists.

Paul told Timothy that a Bishop should have one wife, so that suggests that Bishops may not have been polygamists. But the law in Judaism explicitly allowed a man to have multiple wives, so you can only speculate whether any of them were polygamists. I suspect you may be right, but it’s just supposition.

In any event I think the LDS dabbling in polygamy was a mistake. But I’ll wait until I’m better settled in here before I share my feelings on that.

 

[Telstar]

Ah. Thank you for clarifying that. Do you have a reference? I have long wondered about that. What you say makes sense.

Yes, I do. This is from the account of the Day of Pentecost (after the Ascension of Jesus), when the Apostles received the Holy Ghost, then preached to the people of Jerusalem (when they all heard the words in their own language, or ‘tongue’):

DR- Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2: “[43] And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. [44] And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. [45] Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.”

 

[Stephen168]

That’s a retcon, like the silly mormons I know that argue that the wine Jesus drank was grape juice.

First you would have to produce a reference to a current wife and a reference for grape juice that make you intoxicated.

Paul told Timothy that a Bishop should have one wife, so that suggests that Bishops may not have been polygamists. But the law in Judaism explicitly allowed a man to have multiple wives, so you can only speculate whether any of them were polygamists. I suspect you may be right, but it’s just supposition.

In any event I think the LDS dabbling in polygamy was a mistake. But I’ll wait until I’m better settled in here before I share my feelings on that.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam is common in Mormonism as is claiming to restore Judaism while also claiming to restore the Church of Former Day Saints.

 

[Telstar]

I’ve met two widows who both refer to their died husband’s mother as their mother in law. Clearly, Peter had been married, but not married at the time he was a member of the Twelve. Also some early Church writing said Philip had children, but not married when he was a member of the Twelve.

That’s a very good possibility, too. He may have been a widower. I can’t find anything about Philip having children (and don’t recall it). But, they might have been fully grown at the time, so he would no longer be responsible for their financial support.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Paul told Timothy that a Bishop should have one wife, so that suggests that Bishops may not have been polygamists.

Christians believe that this refers to divorce and remarriage, which Jesus condemned, rather than polygamy, which was not practiced in Jesus’ day.

Paul ( formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[FCEGM]

Excellent answer on the Cana wedding. You have convinced me thoroughly that was not Jesus’ wedding

It never mentions him inhaling, either. Would it shake your faith if evidence came out that he was married?

If it were important that he was single, then the scriptures would have stated that he never took a wife.

The fact that it says nothing about it suggests that it’s not an important issue; that Jesus’ marital status is simply none of our business.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11865901&postcount=73