S
- Status
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I think the LDS response to this may be that they know he was a prophet because they feel it and it has been confirmed to them by the Holy Spirit. How do you respond to that argument?
Other than pointing out it is no argument at all, you have to leave it up to the Holy Spirit to open their LDS eyes, or our Catholic eyes:thumbsup:
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Hagar was not taken as Abraham’s “wife.” She was “taken” as the handmaid of the wife. This was NOT polygamy as the LDS Church practices it, unless the second wife is a handmaid to the first? I thought it was a “sister-wife” relationship, and not a master-servant relationship between LDS wives. Perhaps I’m misinformed. But regardless, the Bible doesn’t teach that Hagar was married (or sealed) to Abraham. If I am wrong, please provide the passage that describes their marriage/sealing ceremony.
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
For the benefit of those of us who were never members of the LDS Church, but perceive a serious problem with Smith’s false prophecies as presented by these three ex-mormons, would you do us the huge favor of answering the questions? You say you come to dispell misperceptions about your church. Well, you have a golden opportunity to do so here…
Peace,
Robert
P
ParkerD
Guest
Robert,
It is my understanding that they wouldn’t necessarily have had a “marriage ceremony” as we would define that, but here is the description that Abraham and Hagar were “married” per the older Catholic translation, Douay-Rheims, Genesis 16 (including a note about plural marriage at that time for the patriarchs):
Abram marrieth Agar, who bringeth forth Ismael.
[1] Now Sarai the wife of Abram, had brought forth no children; but having a handmaid, an Egyptian, named Agar, [2] She said to her husband: Behold, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: go in unto my handmaid, it may be I may have children of her at least. And when he agreed to her request, [3] She took Agar the Egyptian her handmaid, ten years after they first dwelt in the land of Chanaan, and gave her to her husband to wife. [4] And he went in to her. But she, perceiving that she was with child, despised her mistress. [5] And Sarai said to Abram: Thou dost unjustly with me: I gave my handmaid into thy bosom, and she perceiving herself to be with child, despiseth me. The Lord judge between me and thee.
[3] “To wife”… Plurality of wives, though contrary to the primitive institution of marriage, Gen. 2. 24, was by divine dispensation allowed to the patriarchs: which allowance seems to have continued during the time of the law of Moses. But Christ our Lord reduced marriage to its primitive institution. Matt. 19.
E
e46m3
Guest
God let Abraham have children with Agar because Sairai could not have children. That is completely different than Mormons polygamy. Joseph Smith had at least 33 wives, and Brigham Young had over 50. There is a difference between feeding your large sexual appetite, and having children with your wives handmaid because your wife cannot have children.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Robert,For the benefit of those of us who were never members of the LDS Church, but perceive a serious problem with Smith’s false prophecies as presented by these three ex-mormons, would you do us the huge favor of answering the questions? You say you come to dispell misperceptions about your church. Well, you have a golden opportunity to do so here…
Peace,
Robert
I already answered the “perceived false prophecies”. You can find them if you read my earlier posts.
The major “problem” with the whole idea of this thread is that it appears most Catholics and the three posters whom I exclude from reading their comments, begin with a completely erroneous understanding of the word “prophet” in that the definition and description of those who fall under the category of the word “prophet” as used in the Bible, is a far larger group than the tiny definition given to the word by Catholics.
So to try and answer any of their other questions when the basic assumptions and premises are non-Biblical, is merely to begin a futile exercise.
Peace to you, also. Enjoy your evening.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
ParkerD, perhaps it would be helpful for you (or if you know of an article that does this) to define what a “prophet” is, according to the Bible, and how LDS prophets fit that definition. Who is a prophet, what does a prophet do, etc., and why are the Catholics posting in this thread using an erroneous understanding of the word “prophet”?
Thanks.
P
ParkerD
Guest
CatholicGuyNY,
Fair question–thanks for asking.
Here is a link to all the Old Testament (KJV) uses of the word “prophet”:
scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=words&last=prophet&help=&wo=checked&search=prophet&iw=ot&tx=checked&af=checked&hw=checked&sw=checked&bw=1
(Not sure if that will work as copied over, but it’s from lds.org–gospel library–scriptures and then using the search tool and the option of selecting Old Testament verses.) Total, 134 uses of the word in the Old Testament (sometimes for a “false prophet”).
Here, if it works, is a link to all the New Testament uses of the word “prophet” (KJV):
scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=words&last=prophet&help=&wo=checked&search=prophet&iw=nt&tx=checked&af=checked&hw=checked&sw=checked&bw=1
Total, 81 uses of the word “prophet” in the New Testament.
A diligent student of the Bible can take all of those verses and develop a “composite description” of the word “prophet” as used in the Bible. It will include a great many characteristics, such as “would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:29) and “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10)
It will include that a prophet teaches the people the “word of God”. Hence, if a person is teaching the people the “word of God” and has been called to do so (by their own definition and description to others that they have been “called”)–then they are acting as a “prophet” using the Biblical characteristics of the use of the word.
I think it will be most helpful for a reader to develop their own composite description using all the verses in the Bible that pertain to the attributes and characteristics of a “prophet”–so I’ll let you do that rather than give you my take on it, beyond what I already wrote above. I think the Bible is best understood by a person taking the time to do that kind of study, on their own. (I really mean that.)
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
ParkerD,
The problem with this is that I asked if you could provide what you believed, and contrast it to the supposed erroneous view that you believe is being presented in this thread (as well as how LDS prophets fit the definition of prophet according to the Bible), so that we can understand why it is erroneous. Basically, I’m asking that you substantiate your claim of the “problem” of this thread that you mentioned previously, so that others can learn about the LDS view of what a prophet is, what they do, etc., in concert with what the Bible says.
If you cannot do this, then perhaps you know of an LDS article that we can read that describes what a prophet is, as far as the Bible, and how LDS prophets fit that.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
That is correct. Sarah asked Abraham to have sex with Hagar so that Sarah could have a child. Apparently, Sarah figured that if Hagar belonged to her, then Hagar’s child would belong to her as well. There was no man/wife relationship between Abraham and Hagar - more like a surrogate arrangement to provide a child for Sarah.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
No evidence of “divine dispensation” in any of that, it’s nothing more than Sarah taking matters into her own hands. According to your “divine dispensation” logic there is still in effect a “divine dispensation” on slavery since patriarchs held them and it continued during the time of the law of Moses and doesn’t seem to be addressed in the NT.
Wow, no one I know would refer to any aspect of life in the Garden as primitive
P
ParkerD
Guest
CatholicGuyNY,
Here is an article from Encyclopedia of Mormonism on the subject of Biblical prophets:
"Prophet: Biblical Prophets
Author: FREEDMAN, DAVID NOEL
Prophets in the Bible claim to be both foretellers and forth-tellers and base their claims upon their private access to the God of Israel, who is the ruler of history-past, present, and future. Prophecy as an essential part of Israel’s theopolitical structure and the prophetic movement as an actual historical phenomenon had their beginnings with Samuel and his band of followers in the eleventh century B.C., at the point of transition from the era of the judges to the beginnings of the monarchy with the installation of Saul as royal head of the Israelite Confederation, or League of Tribes. Prophets, beginning with Samuel, played a significant, if not decisive, part in establishing but also censuring the monarchy and remained an integral part of Israelite society as long as the monarchy survived, and even beyond, when there was still thought or hope of restoring the kingship of the house of David. While God generally speaks to prophets through visions, auditions, and even dreams, with Moses he spoke face to face (Deut. 34) or mouth to mouth (Ex. 33). And whereas other prophets often only sense the presence of deity, Moses saw his actual form and person (Num. 12; cf. Ex. 33-34).
From the biblical records of the prophets and their experiences, one can piece together a picture of prophets and their calling.
THE CALL. The divine call and commission mark the beginning of the prophet’s career. In all recorded cases, the details are striking and distinctive; no two prophetic situations are exactly the same, although all share important elements. We have sufficient data for people like Moses, Samuel, Elisha (but not Elijah), and the great literary prophets such as Amos, Hosea, isaiah, jeremiah, and ezekiel to fill out a composite picture. But we lack information about the call of such prophets as Nathan and Ahijah. Typically, the call is initiated by God and is often accompanied by one or more visions, along with some unusual or miraculous occurrence (e.g., the burning bush). It is the combination of circumstances that persuades the prophet (or prophetess) that he (or she) is not hallucinating but is having contact with the living God.
THE COMMISSION. The call is always accompanied by a commission. The purpose is to enlist or draft the prophet to carry out a mission or duty-to do something in response to the call. Some prophets are reluctant to take on such responsibility, and therefore make excuses or otherwise try to evade their calling (e.g., Moses, Jeremiah, and, above all, Jonah). Other prophets are eager to carry out their task and hasten to do so (e.g., Isaiah, Ezekiel, perhaps Hosea). The basic rules for the prophet-the marching orders, as it were-are given succinctly and eloquently in the book of Jeremiah: “Wherever I send you you shall go, and what I tell you, you shall say” (Jer. 1:7[author translation]). In brief, the prophet is the ambassador or messenger of God, and his (or her) sole duty is to deliver the message as given.
THE MESSAGE. In most cases, the message is for others and especially for the nation, its leaders, and the people generally. Often it contains warnings and threats, sometimes promises and encouragement. Inevitably there is a predictive element, as messages are mostly oriented to the future but rooted in the past. For the most part, predictions are morally conditioned, based upon the covenant between God and Israel, offering the choice between life and death, with success as the result of obedience and failure as the consequence of disobedience and defiance. Occasionally the oracles are pronounced absolutely, guaranteeing the future, whether of destruction or restoration. Occasionally they are timebound-that is, within a specified period the events described will occur, but often no time frame is specified. Even when moral or temporal conditions are not articulated, they may be implied by the speaker or inferred by the hearers. A notable case is the flat prediction by Micah (Micah 3:12) that Jerusalem will be destroyed. A century later, Jeremiah quotes the passage not to show that the prophecy was unfulfilled (Jerusalem had not been destroyed and was still standing), or much less to indict Micah as a false prophet, but rather to argue that as a result of the prophecy, the king (Hezekiah) and the people repented, and hence Yahweh (Jehovah) forgave them and spared the city (Jer. 26:16-19). It was the prophet’s message that produced the result, and therefore both he and his message were vindicated as coming from God."
I will follow that up with another post.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
He quoted that directly from the Douay-Rheims Bible commentary, it’s not his own words:No evidence of “divine dispensation” in any of that, it’s nothing more than Sarah taking matters into her own hands. According to your “divine dispensation” logic there is still in effect a “divine dispensation” on slavery since patriarchs held them and it continued during the time of the law of Moses and doesn’t seem to be addressed in the NT.
Wow, no one I know would refer to any aspect of life in the Garden as primitive
drbo.org/chapter/01016.htm
I think you misunderstood what it’s saying. It’s not saying that life in the Garden was primitive. It’s saying that monogamous marriage is the “primitive” (original?) institution of marriage, and that God allowed polygamy in the OT by “divine dispensation” (an exception to the norm, a relaxing of the normal rules, a concept that should be familiar to many Catholics, usually brought up when talking about communion in the hand), however Christ returned marriage back to its original intent, i.e. monogamy.
P
ParkerD
Guest
CatholicGuyNY,
I don’t consider that article to have completely treated the subject, so here are some follow-up comments:
First, another section of an article from Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Prophet–Todd A Britsch):
“The word “prophet” comes from the Greek prophetes, which means “inspired teacher.” Although neither the Greek term nor its Hebrew equivalent, nabi, initially required the function of foretelling (Smith, p. 3), all prophecy looks to the future. Since the Lord has chosen some of his servants to be foretellers-to disclose, sometimes in specific terms, momentous events that are to occur-the predictive element often overshadows other implications of the word in the minds of some (see Revelation; Jesus Christ: Prophecies About Jesus Christ).
But the gift of prophecy is not restricted to those whose words have been recorded in scripture. By scriptural definition, a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ and is moved by the Holy Ghost (Rev. 19:10; cf. TPJS, pp. 119, 160). Moses, voicing his approval of two men who had prophesied, exclaimed, “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” (Num. 11:26-29)” (end quote)
The frequent warnings in Deuteronomy and in other passages about the Israelites not listening to “false prophets” around them, show that the term “prophet” takes on the meaning of “inspired teacher”, and thus if one were to come among them claiming to be an “inspired teacher” and yet lead them to the worship of idols (which happened frequently) or to compromising their standards (which also happened), or did not warn them to keep the law and the covenants, then such a claim would indicate the person was a “false prophet” and should not be followed.
One clear aspect of a “prophet” was that they were not always going to be “perfect” in doing the right thing, and needed correcting by God themselves–so they were in the position of being an example of how to take correction from God as well as how to teach the people to accept God’s correcting influence in their lives (“for whom the Lord loveth, He correcteth”).
The contrast I see with what seems to be the Catholic definition of “prophet” is that in the Old and New Testaments, the term “prophet” really is synonymous with the term “inspired teacher among the people, called by God”, and that definition would clearly encompass the Pope and I assume the Cardinals since they go out among the people teaching them and they say they have authority from God–so that would make them a “prophet” in the Biblical sense of the word. Yet the word seems to be a “hush-hush” word as to Catholic leaders being such, from what I have seen people write on threads on this forum.
I don’t consider that article to have completely treated the subject, so here are some follow-up comments:
First, another section of an article from Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Prophet–Todd A Britsch):
“The word “prophet” comes from the Greek prophetes, which means “inspired teacher.” Although neither the Greek term nor its Hebrew equivalent, nabi, initially required the function of foretelling (Smith, p. 3), all prophecy looks to the future. Since the Lord has chosen some of his servants to be foretellers-to disclose, sometimes in specific terms, momentous events that are to occur-the predictive element often overshadows other implications of the word in the minds of some (see Revelation; Jesus Christ: Prophecies About Jesus Christ).
But the gift of prophecy is not restricted to those whose words have been recorded in scripture. By scriptural definition, a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ and is moved by the Holy Ghost (Rev. 19:10; cf. TPJS, pp. 119, 160). Moses, voicing his approval of two men who had prophesied, exclaimed, “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” (Num. 11:26-29)” (end quote)
The frequent warnings in Deuteronomy and in other passages about the Israelites not listening to “false prophets” around them, show that the term “prophet” takes on the meaning of “inspired teacher”, and thus if one were to come among them claiming to be an “inspired teacher” and yet lead them to the worship of idols (which happened frequently) or to compromising their standards (which also happened), or did not warn them to keep the law and the covenants, then such a claim would indicate the person was a “false prophet” and should not be followed.
One clear aspect of a “prophet” was that they were not always going to be “perfect” in doing the right thing, and needed correcting by God themselves–so they were in the position of being an example of how to take correction from God as well as how to teach the people to accept God’s correcting influence in their lives (“for whom the Lord loveth, He correcteth”).
The contrast I see with what seems to be the Catholic definition of “prophet” is that in the Old and New Testaments, the term “prophet” really is synonymous with the term “inspired teacher among the people, called by God”, and that definition would clearly encompass the Pope and I assume the Cardinals since they go out among the people teaching them and they say they have authority from God–so that would make them a “prophet” in the Biblical sense of the word. Yet the word seems to be a “hush-hush” word as to Catholic leaders being such, from what I have seen people write on threads on this forum.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Thanks
Though I still see the line of thinking in the commentary as leaving slavery open. Probably due to a very scary former “pastor” of an acquaintance of mine who was in favor of both polygamy and slavery and a whole host of other stuff.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Yes, we do thank you for the answer, little sense though they make. The reason it took so long to get to the answer, however, is that it takes that long to work around known facts and rationale and still be able to keep the illusion alive.How did a simple question like what I asked you end up with an 8 paragraph answer? I think everything could have been answered in paragraph 6, don’t you?
Both of us thank you for your reply
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Yet there aren’t any real apostles any more so this is a misnomer. What miracles have your apostles performed lately? Signs? How about wonders?
If this were a revelation from God, why didn’t he say what he meant? As far as I know, the Bible normally divides people into two catagories: Jew and Gentiles. If God meant Jews, he said “Jews.” I don’t know how large of a population of Jews Kirtland, OH had at the time, but I’m guessing it wasn’t very big.
You’re right there which means that Smith’s consistant record of false prophecies elimiates him from the running as a prophet appointed by God.
I have to say that I didn’t see this one coming, you claiming that I just don’t understand.
Um, no, it clearly doesn’t. Though poorly worded, it’s still some sort of a thinly veiled threat of violence at the Mormons’ hands. The verse bears no similarity or reference to Christ’s sacrifice.
Well, since there’s no ‘pre-mortal Mormon’ existance anywhere in the Bible or in early LDS texts, there’s really no basis for this. And again, you didn’t address the fact that the ‘prophecy’ clearly says that he and 12 others, among whom Smith was to be counted, would go on this ‘mission.’ If the 12 others and Smith didn’t die with Patten, which they did not, this is a false prophecy.
Is this what they’re teaching you or are you like Indiana Jones, making it up as you go along?
R
Returning_Home
Guest
I’m simply meeting you on your own ground, assuming that what you claim is true and working fromt here. You assume it’s true and I’m trying to rectify that against facts.
[/quote]
There actually is because we have Bilbical prophecies fulfilled over and over and LDS prophecy, even through the ‘restoration’-era prophets who haven’t gotten anything correct. That’s comparing apples and bulldozers.
The reason we have to take what the LDS prophets say as prophecy is because there’s no clear-cut line between their opinion and words from God; they’re used as factual whenever convenient to support your case, not when the tide turns against you and your spurious claims.
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]
P
ParkerD
Guest
Robert in SD,
If you happen back, you will see that I will respond to more questions here even though I think there is a problem of basic non-understanding of the Bible, which means the person asking a question or trying to make a point needs to go back and get that basic understanding first.
But, since you asked, here goes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkerD
The use of the word “blood” ties to the atoning blood of the Savior. He suffered, bled and died for all humankind, and through His atoning blood our sins will no longer stain our “garments” through our personal repentance.
Nonsense. The writer of this response has no idea what he or she is writing about.
Isa. 63: 3
3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkerD
“Jews” in that context means “non-Gentiles”, which means any of the house of Israel which does not only mean the tribe of Judah. Most of the early LDS converts were “Jews” in that they were from the tribe of Ephraim, although among “Gentile” nations.
This statement again shows not the slightest understanding of the Old Testament or the New Testament. The “Jews” meant either the entire House of Israel (Twelve Tribes), or the Tribe of Judah, or the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin (the Southern Kingdom). The Northern Kingdom was comprised of Ten Tribes, led by Ephraim. Whenever the word “Jews” is used in the New Testament, it will mean the entire House of Israel, and otherwise the people outside the House of Israel (excluding the Samaritans, who were considered to be descendants of Abraham and therefore part of the Abrahamic covenant), were called “Gentiles.”
- Status