How can you claim joseph smith was a prophet?

[ParkerD]

1. Many people are familiar with the apostolic charge, and that it means to carry the gospel message to “all nations” and to “all creatures” and lead people to repentance and baptism. This is an ongoing responsibility for the apostles called at any point on the earth.

“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.

1. God would not and does not call someone to “fail” or tell them they are going to fail, of course. God expects people to make a success of their callings and responsibilities in life, and gives them the opportunity (including demonstrating faith in their ability) to succeed in their callings and responsibilities.
2. A non-LDS is not generally going to understand what “blood be required at your hands” means. A person familiar with Ezekiel understands that a watchman called to give warning to the people, has the “sins” of the people accounted for on that “watchman’s head” if the watchman didn’t take his responsibility seriously and raise the warning voice to the people he was called to warn.

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.

1. and 5) David W Patten was called as an apostle. The spirit world is part of the responsibility where the gospel needs to go forth, and it is on this earth, though unseen by us. (Sometimes it is felt by people who are “in tune” with spiritual feelings and who may have reason to feel the presence, spiritually, of someone they love who has passed on to the spirit world.)

Peace to all, and have a good day.

Robert in SD,
Here is the text of Doctrine and Covenants D&C 114: 1
1 VERILY thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world.

Notice the words “twelve including himself”, which may or may not mean the Twelve Apostles. Many men were killed during the two mob attacks that happened soon after that revelation was given, including David W Patten. This would mean those men go to the spirit world, where they do indeed “testify of the name of Christ and bear glad tidings unto all the world” there in the spirit world, where people are indeed alive in the spirit.

If the verse meant the Twelve Apostles, then David W Patten was carrying the apostolic ministry to the spirit world as the first modern dispensation apostle to go there and begin the work of “testifying of the name of Christ and bearing glad tidings” (of repentance and rejoicing) in that world, where the people need to know and have just as much right to learn as do the people in this world where we are now.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

Robert in SD,
This post answers the other assertion.

 

[ParkerD]

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 ought to be understood 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.

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.

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.”

 

[Returning_Home]

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.

Please show me where I can find the name Jesus in that verse or in the preceeding three or four to establish this allegation. I must’ve missed it.

Nonsense. The writer of this response has no idea what he or she is writing about.

You can’t even use my name? That’s not polite, Parker.

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.”

Now this is coming from someone belonging to the church that often claims the sticks in Ezek 37:18-22 refers to the BOM and the Bible?

I agree with your conclusions here but they in no way have anything to do with D&C 112 and the passage in Isaiah that Smith stole it from and that’s the point. The scariest part of all this is that you truly believe what you’re saying as if it has some basis in reality.

 

[ParkerD]

Please show me where I can find the name Jesus in that verse or in the preceeding three or four to establish this allegation. I must’ve missed it.

Returning Home,
(I have no idea of your name, by the way).

D & C 112:33 is a summation verse. It doesn’t need to refer back to “the preceding three or four verses” to establish the context. The context is in the entire section, and also in all of the allusions made by the words used in the section–allusions to the calling of apostles in the New Testament and what that calling entails, and to the calling of prophets in both the Old and New Testaments and what that calling entails. (Peter used allusions frequently in his epistles. The Savior used allusions often in His teaching. Isaiah used allusions often in his writing also.)

See verses 28-29 and verses 13-14:

28 But purify your hearts before me; and then go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it;
29 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

13 And after their temptations, and much tribulation, behold, I, the Lord, will feel after them, and if they harden not their hearts, and stiffen not their necks against me, they shall be converted, and I will heal them.
14 Now, I say unto you, and what I say unto you, I say unto all the Twelve: Arise and gird up your loins, take up your cross, follow me, and feed my sheep.

Now compare with verses 33-34 which is the end of the section:

33 Verily I say unto you, behold how great is your calling. Cleanse your hearts and your garments, lest the blood of this generation be required at your hands.
34 Be faithful until I come, for I come quickly; and my reward is with me to recompense every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega.

“How great is your calling” refers to the calling of an apostle. “Cleanse your hearts” refers to repenting, hardening not their hearts, being converted, purifying their hearts.

“Cleanse your garments, lest the blood of this generation be required at your hands” refers to preaching the “gospel unto every creature” so that every creature repents so that Alpha and Omega can fulfill His mission–that by taking upon Himself the sins of every creature, His atoning grace becomes available to all as we repent:

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.

The most important thing we can do in life is feel gratitude for the atoning grace of the Savior. We ought to feel that gratitude every day, and show that gratitude by repenting of our sins and allowing His grace to help us change our lives. Of Him I bear witness, that He lives and that His atoning grace is real. I will be forever grateful for His atoning grace. I hope others are also.

Peace to all readers.

 

[Returning_Home]

Returning Home,
(I have no idea of your name, by the way).

You did it right there. Wasn’t so hard, was it? You can also use RH if it makes things easier.

D & C 112:33 is a summation verse. It doesn’t need to refer back to “the preceding three or four verses” to establish the context. The context is in the entire section, and also in all of the allusions made by the words used in the section–allusions to the calling of apostles in the New Testament and what that calling entails, and to the calling of prophets in both the Old and New Testaments and what that calling entails. (Peter used allusions frequently in his epistles. The Savior used allusions often in His teaching. Isaiah used allusions often in his writing also.)

I’m shaking my head because you either don’t know the difference or you’re making up definitions to words again, but a summary, or summation, would be the condensing and restating of the entire point of what’s come before it. Thus, yes, the verse would indeed have to refer directly back to those three, four, or five verses in order to make sense and be cohesive.

See verses 28-29 and verses 13-14:

Now compare with verses 33-34 which is the end of the section:

“Cleanse your garments, lest the blood of this generation be required at your hands” refers to preaching the “gospel unto every creature” so that every creature repents so that Alpha and Omega can fulfill His mission–that by taking upon Himself the sins of every creature, His atoning grace becomes available to all as we repent:

Rather than quoting your entire post, even piece by piece which is annoying and space-wasting, I took the important parts (you could call this summarizing) and will address them as a whole.

Your ‘summary’ verse has nothing to do with the verses that came before it, not one mention of the Crucifixion, or even the suffering in the Garden (which we know the church has put above the Crucifixion). You assertion is therefore simply your opinion with nothing to support it.

Without that foundation, the “lest the blood of this generation be required at your hands” phrase takes on the correct meaning. It would also be interesting if we could find evidence that Marsh was a Danite, which then put all into proper prospective.

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.

Nice try, but the context and the speaker are different so the comparison holds no water. And since you don’t know if this part of the Bible was correctly translated or not, you have nothing to work with.

The most important thing we can do in life is feel gratitude for the atoning grace of the Savior. We ought to feel that gratitude every day, and show that gratitude by repenting of our sins and allowing His grace to help us change our lives. Of Him I bear witness, that He lives and that His atoning grace is real. I will be forever grateful for His atoning grace. I hope others are also.

I agree but using my own terminology against me isn’t going to work either since Mormonism holds that men can become gods like God, demeaning his character and nature. With the redefined role of the savior, you make him like a sideshow barker. Step right up and get your exaltation here! Exaltation, all for the low, low price of accepting the word of Joseph Smith as fact!

That, and your soul, of course.

 

[SirThomasMore]

There is no need to quote Scriptures or even the BM and DC to determine if Joe was a prophet. Just look at him…

1. A con man- arrested for treasure seeking. He later uses those treasure-seeking stones to translate the BM
2. Dishonest- lied about somehow carrying, at the very minimum, 50-60 pounds in a bag and running faster then three men at night, over rough terrain, and him with a bad leg
3. Dishonest- had at least nine different versions of the alleged first vision.
4. Dishonest- several versions of how he got the plates.
5. Dishonest- affidavits from several friends and family re: the book of mormon that show it is stolen. To rebut the affidavits of those honest people, Joe provides 11 witnesses who he laters says are all liars who cannot be trusted.
6. Dishonest- claims to have written a history of a land and people and there is absolutely no evidence that supports any of those claims
7. Dishonest- lost people a LOT of money in bank scams, then ran away from creditors and the law
8. No Morals- gets caught in an affair and uses polygamy to excuse it
9. Heretic- invents a god that was once a sinful man. claims we can all be gods (like Satan did in the Garden of Eden), invents a god that changes his mind when the going gets tough, and invents a god that is incredibly racist.

Is there any doubt from intelligent people that this man was NOT a prophet?

 

[ParkerD]

1. I’m shaking my head because you either don’t know the difference or you’re making up definitions to words again, but a summary, or summation, would be the condensing and restating of the entire point of what’s come before it. Thus, yes, the verse would indeed have to refer directly back to those three, four, or five verses in order to make sense and be cohesive.
2. Your ‘summary’ verse has nothing to do with the verses that came before it, not one mention of the Crucifixion, or even the suffering in the Garden (which we know the church has put above the Crucifixion). Your assertion is therefore simply your opinion with nothing to support it.
3. Without that foundation, the “lest the blood of this generation be required at your hands” phrase takes on the correct meaning. It would also be interesting if we could find evidence that Marsh was a Danite, which then put all into proper prospective.
4. Nice try, but the context and the speaker are different so the comparison holds no water. And since you don’t know if this part of the Bible was correctly translated or not, you have nothing to work with.
5. I agree but using my own terminology against me isn’t going to work either since Mormonism holds that men can become gods like God, demeaning his character and nature.

RH,
I suppose that a few people are looking occasionally at this thread to see if I have answered your assertions again. That being the case, here are responses:

1. The calling of an apostle is what is being referred to with the words, “behold, how great is your calling.” I guess that it is not surprising for one such as yourself not to have in mind what the “calling of an apostle” means in terms of responsibility, but being familiar with the New Testament a person can fairly readily figure out some aspects of what it means–to testify of the living, resurrected Jesus Christ to all the world as the Savior of the world, and to urge people within the sound of the voice of the apostle to repent and come unto Christ and be sanctified through the Holy Spirit.

Scriptural language often restates in a different way the message being conveyed through the Holy Spirit to the prophet doing the writing in a preceding passage or verse. Isaiah wrote in this way often. Paul did this. The Savior did this in the parables. It is a very common aspect of scriptural language. It need not refer back to three or four preceding verses. There are often allusion words or similes or metaphors that can be linked if the reader is familiar with the allusion, the simile or the metaphor. But that requires familiarity with the Bible that is beyond a haphazard “isolate one verse and use it as a stand-alone gospel” approach. Allusions go right past some readers who simply don’t have the familiarity.

1. Once again, that assertion does not recognize that the “calling” of an apostle is automatically an allusion to the entire set of responsibilities of an apostle as alluded to in the New Testament. Of course an apostle has the responsibility to testify of the Crucifixion and atonement and resurrection of the Lord, Jesus Christ. This can be described as a “given” any time the word “apostle” is used. This is what word that makes an allusion does. It doesn’t have to restate all the connotations of the word. A student of English literature will generally have become familiar with what the word “allusion” means. A student of the Bible will also, if they bring their knowledge of English literary styles and Hebrew literary styles with them to the studying that they do. It is a great personal loss if a person doesn’t do that as they read the Bible.
2. An allusion does not say “see such and such a passage”. It can be one word, or a phrase, that a diligent student will recognize as a reference to another literary piece–whether it be to a work of poetry, a play, a historical event, or in cases of scripture, an earlier metaphor or teaching found in earlier recorded scripture.

The use of the words “blood of this generation” is a metaphor, of course. It does not mean every person in the generation’s physical blood. It is a metaphorical reference and an allusion whose roots can be found in the Isaiah 63:3 passage I had already noted, and in the law of sacrifice among the children of Israel when the Levite priests sprinkled blood of the sacrificed lamb in a certain way as revealed to Moses. It always is an allusion to the atonement of Jesus Christ–His atoning blood, and the fact that His atoning blood allows “our blood to be sprinkled upon His garments” and thus His garments to be “stained with (our) blood”, meaning stained with our sins so that we need not suffer for our own sins. (Readers, look again at Isaiah 63:3–KJV).

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation to RH:

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.

The calling of an apostle is similar to the responsibility spoken of by Ezekiel, as I had already noted earlier when I had discussed D & C 112:33.

A “watchman” in Israel has a responsibility given to them by God. Every watchman has that responsibility, and particularly apostles have that responsibility. It is basically to call people to repentance, and if they don’t do it then they have shirked their responsibility and the people’s sins are not placed squarely on their own shoulders since they weren’t warned and taught. Instead, those sins fall partly onto the shoulders of the person who was given a calling by God to warn the people.

Here is the Ezekiel passage that is part of the allusion and metaphor:

Ezekiel 3:16 And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

4 and 5) I assure you the Bible is far more “correctly translated” (in the KJV) than you and others seem to believe, and has directly applicable meaning that need not be explained away such as you are doing with your point number 5. There are many, many references to humankind becoming “like God” and receiving a “joint throne with Christ, the Heir” in the Bible. Just because they get explained away by people who want to explain them away, doesn’t mean that was what was intended by Christ and by the apostles when the original teachings were presented.

1. It does not demean Christ for Him and the apostles to have taught that humankind are asked to become “like Him”. To not understand the Intercessory prayer is to miss one of the most important teachings of the Savior, and to not understand the extent of His love and His mission on this earth as our loving, redeeming Savior. It is plainly taught, over and over again in the New Testament. Through His atoning grace, humankind can become that which they otherwise certainly could not become–become like Him. Become one with Him as He is One with the Father. This is what becoming sanctified is all about.

To the general reader:
I have born witness that Jesus Christ lives, and is our Redeemer and Savior. I have strongly suggested that repentance is a necessary, urgent requirement for people to do in their lives. They do this through prayer asking God for forgiveness from sin through the atoning blood and atoning grace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and through forgiving others. These are necessary, vital and ongoing processes in each person’s life.

Please know that because the Holy Spirit asked me to come to this website long ago, that I have sought to follow those promptings to explain about coming unto Christ through ongoing repentance (which many Catholics do and all Catholics should do and will be blessed through doing so), and have explained that process to the best of my ability. If readers have read Ezekiel, then a reader will understand one of the reasons why I have persisted and felt a responsibility to persist despite all the resistance.

Peace to all readers.

 

[Returning_Home]

The calling of an apostle is what is being referred to with the words, “behold, how great is your calling.”

1. Once again, that assertion does not recognize that the “calling” of an apostle is automatically an allusion to the entire set of responsibilities of an apostle as alluded to in the New Testament. .

The use of the words “blood of this generation” is a metaphor, of course. It does not mean every person in the generation’s physical blood. It is a metaphorical reference and an allusion whose roots can be found in the Isaiah 63:3 passage I had already noted, and in the law of sacrifice among the children of Israel when the Levite priests sprinkled blood of the sacrificed lamb in a certain way as revealed to Moses. It always is an allusion to the atonement of Jesus Christ–His atoning blood, and the fact that His atoning blood allows “our blood to be sprinkled upon His garments” and thus His garments to be “stained with (our) blood”, meaning stained with our sins so that we need not suffer for our own sins.

Let’s just boil it all down to what you’re really saying: RH, you just don’t understand. That’s th long and short of it, but, in typical LDS fashion, you’re trying to go about it the long way, sidestepping reason, logic, and common sense to build your case.

I never said anything about apostles in that context so you’re trying to get me to fall for the red herring, which isn’t gonna happen. Since we know there’s no divinity involved with Smith or any of his cronies, the apostleship of any Mormon impresses only Mormons, not Christians.

We also have no Biblical basis for continuing to have apostles because there’s no need; God told us what we need to know in the Bible. This doesn’t rule out further revelations from God, but rather from frauds like Joseph Smith.

You’re trying to teach me what allusions, summaries, similies, and such mean but there’s no need; what you’re doing is self-serving, tailoring your responses to fit your conclusions, not the readily accepted realities that they refute.

I also take the thinly veiled terms ‘such as yourself’ as the insults they are. If you’re going to call me names, at least be creative. I can take anything you can dish out.

Your last conclusion is laughable because if it does indeed refer to what you’re trying to get me to believe, this would then equate Patten to Christ himself. This also makes no sense in light of the fact that there’s no reason to heaken back to allusions of Christ’s sacrifice when you can simply refer to Christ’s sacrifice itself.

4 and 5) I assure you the Bible is far more “correctly translated” (in the KJV) than you and others seem to believe, and has directly applicable meaning that need not be explained away such as you are doing with your point number 5. There are many, many references to humankind becoming “like God” and receiving a “joint throne with Christ, the Heir” in the Bible. Just because they get explained away by people who want to explain them away, doesn’t mean that was what was intended by Christ and by the apostles when the original teachings were presented.

Is that right? I don’t think any Christian literature claims that the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things’ the way the BOM does seven times. Your attempts to distance yourself from that will never get far because your worldview is based on the BOM being correct and if so, there was a need for the fictional restoration.

This is supported by a passage in Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Jospeh Smith: “…Joseph spent about three years going through the Bible, making *thousands *of corrections to the text and restoring information that had been lost.” (page 208, 2007, COJCOLDS, SLC, UT)

On page 27 of the same book, one simple sentence sums it all up: “His (God’s) teachings were corrupted…”

Therefore, your opinion that the Bible isn’t as bad off as your own literature claims not only puts you at odds with your own church, but shows that this is just your opinion, and we all know what they say those are like.

Yes, there are those references to being like God or gods, but in their proper context, they don’t support your position whatsoever. Only by taking them out of context can you make them appear to be something they’re not.

1. I have born witness that Jesus Christ lives, and is our Redeemer and Savior. I have strongly suggested that repentance is a necessary, urgent requirement for people to do in their lives. They do this through prayer asking God for forgiveness from sin through the atoning blood and atoning grace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and through forgiving others. These are necessary, vital and ongoing processes in each person’s life.

I agree but with the conditions you put on Jesus, you make him insignificant and little more than a mascot like Ronald McDonald. Your jesus is a weakling and a product of incest, a clown that dances for your amusement, asking you if you want to supersize your exaltation Happy Meal. The plastic gold plates you got at the bottom, however, are the best you can hope for when following the false gospel of Joseph’s Myth.

 

[Returning_Home]

1. Please know that because the Holy Spirit asked me to come to this website long ago, that I have sought to follow those promptings to explain about coming unto Christ through ongoing repentance (which many Catholics do and all Catholics should do and will be blessed through doing so), and have explained that process to the best of my ability. If readers have read Ezekiel, then a reader will understand one of the reasons why I have persisted and felt a responsibility to persist despite all the resistance.

Since the Holy Spirit wouldn’t lead you to the conclusion that the BOM is right, it wasn’t him who lead you here either.

Your poor attempts to buddy up to members here isn’t working either. Mormons simply aren’t Christians, no matter how many times you say it, no matter what languages you translate the BOM into, no matter how many people you deceive with missionary work. Flattering Catholics doesn’t make the words of your primary god, Joseph’s Myth go away: “…and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were *an abomination *in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt…” (JS-H 1:18)

 

[twopekinguys]

Well said!!

 

[ParkerD]

1. Let’s just boil it all down to what you’re really saying: RH, you just don’t understand. That’s th long and short of it, but, in typical LDS fashion, you’re trying to go about it the long way, sidestepping reason, logic, and common sense to build your case.
2. I never said anything about apostles in that context so you’re trying to get me to fall for the red herring, which isn’t gonna happen. Since we know there’s no divinity involved with Smith or any of his cronies, the apostleship of any Mormon impresses only Mormons, not Christians.
3. We also have no Biblical basis for continuing to have apostles because there’s no need; God told us what we need to know in the Bible. This doesn’t rule out further revelations from God, but rather from frauds like Joseph Smith.
4. You’re trying to teach me what allusions, summaries, similies, and such mean but there’s no need; what you’re doing is self-serving, tailoring your responses to fit your conclusions, not the readily accepted realities that they refute.
5. I also take the thinly veiled terms ‘such as yourself’ as the insults they are. If you’re going to call me names, at least be creative. I can take anything you can dish out.
6. Your last conclusion is laughable because if it does indeed refer to what you’re trying to get me to believe, this would then equate Patten to Christ himself. This also makes no sense in light of the fact that there’s no reason to heaken back to allusions of Christ’s sacrifice when you can simply refer to Christ’s sacrifice itself.
7. Is that right? I don’t think any Christian literature claims that the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things’ the way the BOM does seven times. Your attempts to distance yourself from that will never get far because your worldview is based on the BOM being correct and if so, there was a need for the fictional restoration.
8. This is supported by a passage in Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith: “…Joseph spent about three years going through the Bible, making *thousands *of corrections to the text and restoring information that had been lost.” (page 208, 2007, COJCOLDS, SLC, UT)

On page 27 of the same book, one simple sentence sums it all up: “His (God’s) teachings were corrupted…”

Therefore, your opinion that the Bible isn’t as bad off as your own literature claims not only puts you at odds with your own church, but shows that this is just your opinion, and we all know what they say those are like.

1. Yes, there are those references to being like God or gods, but in their proper context, they don’t support your position whatsoever. Only by taking them out of context can you make them appear to be something they’re not.

RH,

1. No–I showed the context based on Biblical passages which you may or may not understand or like.
2. I explained that the word “apostle” has meaning from the Bible.
3. I doubt that Catholics believe there will be “further revelation from God.”
4. I explained “allusions” because you didn’t seem to understand what the word means.
5. OK.
6. Again–one familiar with allusions in the Bible will understand my comments.
7. It was mostly the actions of the ECF and Augustine and Aquinas that brought clouds to understanding the Bible in its clarity.
8. Yes, some teachings became less plain in the translations made by some people, and some passages were left out of the translations that were copied down.
9. So say Catholics–I understand.

Bye.

 

[Todd520]

Being a Prophet does not make one less human.

I’m sure some of the below accusations are true as well as false, yet these men were still able to carry the torch of prophecy and lead the catholic church, unbroken thrugh the centuries.

Again, i’m just pointing out samples of leaders who are not fully christ like.

• Pope Stephen VI after being elected to be pope he had his predecessor exhumed from his grave, brought into court, and tried for various crimes. The corpse was unsurprisingly found guilty as sin and his three blessing fingers were hacked off as punishment. He was then reburied before he was dug up once again in order to be thrown into the Tiber.
• Pope John XII took his mother on as a lover. Rumor has it he was murdered during a jealous rage when the husband of one of his mistresses walked in on them in bed. he was said to have violated virgins and widows alike and had so many women filing in and out of the Vatican that everyone said it had been turned into a brothel.
• Pope Benedict IX: St. Peter Damian accused him of routinely screwing other men and his four legged friends amongst other crimes.
• Pope Boniface VIII decided to take the free market a bit further and was accused of simony (that’s accepting cash for appointing religious positions) in Dante’s infamous Divine Comedy. Though he was alive at the time he showed an uncharacteristic apathy and didn’t order Dante tortured, maimed, or killed. Lucky Dante!
• Pope Urban II cowed France into attacking the Muslim world, throwing the region into five hundred years of religious warfare, which as you can see by the current day turned out remarkably well…
• Pope Urban VI is best remembered for his gratuitously violent nature. Like any true psychopath he was said to have complained when his enemies didn’t “scream loud enough” under torture. God apparently likes screaming more then He likes hymns.
• Pope John XXII was the first to persecute “witches.” Although he was the richest man in the entire world at the time he was still not happy with his lot in life. He deemed that all the “witches” and “heretics” could be accused after death and that all their land should be seized.
• Pope Sixtus IV authorized the Spanish Inquisition and all it’s various forms of torture to gently convince the Jews, Moors, and Heretics that Catholic love and compassion were the way to God.
• Pope John XXIII reigned for five years (1410-1415) before he was striped of his title and declared anti-pope. credited to the accusations of murder, rape, sodomy, incest, and piracy.
• Pope Urban XIII struck up a friendship with a young Galileo which is probably what spared his life later on when the pope tried him for heresy. Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment which was later changed into house arrest. He died nine years later still under house arrest for claiming that a spherical earth revolved around the sun. This decree of heresy was not lifted until 350 years later.
• Pius XII was the pope during Hitler’s reign of terror and didn’t so much as speak one direct harsh word about the man who was slaughtering millions.
• Pope John Paul II, was also part of Hitler’s Youth.

 

[twopekinguys]

Being a Prophet does not make one less human.

I’m sure some of the below accusations are true as well as false, yet these men were still able to carry the torch of prophecy and lead the catholic church, unbroken thrugh the centuries.

Again, i’m just pointing out samples of leaders who are not fully christ like.

• Pope Stephen VI after being elected to be pope he had his predecessor exhumed from his grave, brought into court, and tried for various crimes. The corpse was unsurprisingly found guilty as sin and his three blessing fingers were hacked off as punishment. He was then reburied before he was dug up once again in order to be thrown into the Tiber.
• Pope John XII took his mother on as a lover. Rumor has it he was murdered during a jealous rage when the husband of one of his mistresses walked in on them in bed. he was said to have violated virgins and widows alike and had so many women filing in and out of the Vatican that everyone said it had been turned into a brothel.
• Pope Benedict IX: St. Peter Damian accused him of routinely screwing other men and his four legged friends amongst other crimes.
• Pope Boniface VIII decided to take the free market a bit further and was accused of simony (that’s accepting cash for appointing religious positions) in Dante’s infamous Divine Comedy. Though he was alive at the time he showed an uncharacteristic apathy and didn’t order Dante tortured, maimed, or killed. Lucky Dante!
• Pope Urban II cowed France into attacking the Muslim world, throwing the region into five hundred years of religious warfare, which as you can see by the current day turned out remarkably well…
• Pope Urban VI is best remembered for his gratuitously violent nature. Like any true psychopath he was said to have complained when his enemies didn’t “scream loud enough” under torture. God apparently likes screaming more then He likes hymns.
• Pope John XXII was the first to persecute “witches.” Although he was the richest man in the entire world at the time he was still not happy with his lot in life. He deemed that all the “witches” and “heretics” could be accused after death and that all their land should be seized.
• Pope Sixtus IV authorized the Spanish Inquisition and all it’s various forms of torture to gently convince the Jews, Moors, and Heretics that Catholic love and compassion were the way to God.
• Pope John XXIII reigned for five years (1410-1415) before he was striped of his title and declared anti-pope. credited to the accusations of murder, rape, sodomy, incest, and piracy.
• Pope Urban XIII struck up a friendship with a young Galileo which is probably what spared his life later on when the pope tried him for heresy. Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment which was later changed into house arrest. He died nine years later still under house arrest for claiming that a spherical earth revolved around the sun. This decree of heresy was not lifted until 350 years later.
• Pius XII was the pope during Hitler’s reign of terror and didn’t so much as speak one direct harsh word about the man who was slaughtering millions.
• Pope John Paul II, was also part of Hitler’s Youth.

1. This isn’t about the Pope’s
2. There isn’t a single mention of a false prophesy by any of the Popes.

Do you want to go into the failed prophesies of JS? After all, it only takes one failed prophesy to be a false prophet.

Here’s just one, I know there are more, as I am sure you know that as well.

President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. . . . it was the will of God that they should be ordained to the ministry and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh — even fifty six years should wind up the scene. (History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 182).

 

[SirThomasMore]

Being a Prophet does not make one less human.

I’m sure some of the below accusations are true as well as false, yet these men were still able to carry the torch of prophecy and lead the catholic church, unbroken thrugh the centuries.

Again, i’m just pointing out samples of leaders who are not fully christ like.

• Pope Stephen VI after being elected to be pope he had his predecessor exhumed from his grave, brought into court, and tried for various crimes. The corpse was unsurprisingly found guilty as sin and his three blessing fingers were hacked off as punishment. He was then reburied before he was dug up once again in order to be thrown into the Tiber.
• Pope John XII took his mother on as a lover. Rumor has it he was murdered during a jealous rage when the husband of one of his mistresses walked in on them in bed. he was said to have violated virgins and widows alike and had so many women filing in and out of the Vatican that everyone said it had been turned into a brothel.
• Pope Benedict IX: St. Peter Damian accused him of routinely screwing other men and his four legged friends amongst other crimes.
• Pope Boniface VIII decided to take the free market a bit further and was accused of simony (that’s accepting cash for appointing religious positions) in Dante’s infamous Divine Comedy. Though he was alive at the time he showed an uncharacteristic apathy and didn’t order Dante tortured, maimed, or killed. Lucky Dante!
• Pope Urban II cowed France into attacking the Muslim world, throwing the region into five hundred years of religious warfare, which as you can see by the current day turned out remarkably well…
• Pope Urban VI is best remembered for his gratuitously violent nature. Like any true psychopath he was said to have complained when his enemies didn’t “scream loud enough” under torture. God apparently likes screaming more then He likes hymns.
• Pope John XXII was the first to persecute “witches.” Although he was the richest man in the entire world at the time he was still not happy with his lot in life. He deemed that all the “witches” and “heretics” could be accused after death and that all their land should be seized.
• Pope Sixtus IV authorized the Spanish Inquisition and all it’s various forms of torture to gently convince the Jews, Moors, and Heretics that Catholic love and compassion were the way to God.
• Pope John XXIII reigned for five years (1410-1415) before he was striped of his title and declared anti-pope. credited to the accusations of murder, rape, sodomy, incest, and piracy.
• Pope Urban XIII struck up a friendship with a young Galileo which is probably what spared his life later on when the pope tried him for heresy. Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment which was later changed into house arrest. He died nine years later still under house arrest for claiming that a spherical earth revolved around the sun. This decree of heresy was not lifted until 350 years later.
• Pius XII was the pope during Hitler’s reign of terror and didn’t so much as speak one direct harsh word about the man who was slaughtering millions.
• Pope John Paul II, was also part of Hitler’s Youth.

Please post references.

though, frankly, this is all irrelevant.

I love it when Mormons compare their prophets to Catholic Popes. The comparison means that, to Mormons, either Popes are really prophets (in which case there was no apostasy) or that Mormon leaders are not really Prophets, (in which case, they can;t the authority they claim).

Either way, the comparison renders the LDS Church a false Church.

So, Todd, keep comparing…I will accept your tacit admission that the LDS is false

 

[Pahoran]

Being a Prophet does not make one less human.

I’m sure some of the below accusations are true as well as false, yet these men were still able to carry the torch of prophecy and lead the catholic church, unbroken thrugh the centuries.

Again, i’m just pointing out samples of leaders who are not fully christ like.

• Pope Stephen VI after being elected to be pope he had his predecessor exhumed from his grave, brought into court, and tried for various crimes. The corpse was unsurprisingly found guilty as sin and his three blessing fingers were hacked off as punishment. He was then reburied before he was dug up once again in order to be thrown into the Tiber.
• Pope John XII took his mother on as a lover. Rumor has it he was murdered during a jealous rage when the husband of one of his mistresses walked in on them in bed. he was said to have violated virgins and widows alike and had so many women filing in and out of the Vatican that everyone said it had been turned into a brothel.
• Pope Benedict IX: St. Peter Damian accused him of routinely screwing other men and his four legged friends amongst other crimes.
• Pope Boniface VIII decided to take the free market a bit further and was accused of simony (that’s accepting cash for appointing religious positions) in Dante’s infamous Divine Comedy. Though he was alive at the time he showed an uncharacteristic apathy and didn’t order Dante tortured, maimed, or killed. Lucky Dante!
• Pope Urban II cowed France into attacking the Muslim world, throwing the region into five hundred years of religious warfare, which as you can see by the current day turned out remarkably well…
• Pope Urban VI is best remembered for his gratuitously violent nature. Like any true psychopath he was said to have complained when his enemies didn’t “scream loud enough” under torture. God apparently likes screaming more then He likes hymns.
• Pope John XXII was the first to persecute “witches.” Although he was the richest man in the entire world at the time he was still not happy with his lot in life. He deemed that all the “witches” and “heretics” could be accused after death and that all their land should be seized.
• Pope Sixtus IV authorized the Spanish Inquisition and all it’s various forms of torture to gently convince the Jews, Moors, and Heretics that Catholic love and compassion were the way to God.
• Pope John XXIII reigned for five years (1410-1415) before he was striped of his title and declared anti-pope. credited to the accusations of murder, rape, sodomy, incest, and piracy.
• Pope Urban XIII struck up a friendship with a young Galileo which is probably what spared his life later on when the pope tried him for heresy. Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment which was later changed into house arrest. He died nine years later still under house arrest for claiming that a spherical earth revolved around the sun. This decree of heresy was not lifted until 350 years later.
• Pius XII was the pope during Hitler’s reign of terror and didn’t so much as speak one direct harsh word about the man who was slaughtering millions.
• Pope John Paul II, was also part of Hitler’s Youth.

Poor Pope Formosus! Just two points about the last two:

1. *]It’s true that Pius XII did not speak up about a lot of what was going on in Europe at the time. It is also true that he did a great deal, quietly, to help those who came within his immediate reach. I don’t think it is fair to say that he was unconcerned with the suffering of others; rather, he didn’t want to set the Catholic Church on a collision course with the Third Reich. Perhaps if he had, much good might have come of it; but equally, perhaps the results might have been disastrous. “The law of unintended consequences” means that none of us can be sure what might have ensued. I know of no reason to suspect him of anything like personal cowardice, but he seems to have been unwilling to put the lives of many thousands of Catholic clergy, monks and nuns at risk.
   *]I have not heard that Karol Wojtyla, being a Pole, was in the Hitlerjugend. I thought I heard that Ratzinger had been. But that hardly makes him a Nazi, or even a Nazi sympathiser. All the boys in Germany, or nearly so, were in the Hitlerjugend at one time.
   
   Still, your point is a valid one. “My religious leaders were better than your religious leaders” is probably not a game anyone really wants to start.
   
   Regards,
   Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

Please post references.

Following your example, all he needs to do is wave a hand at “Catholic history.”

though, frankly, this is all irrelevant.

I agree.

I love it when Mormons compare their prophets to Catholic Popes. The comparison means that, to Mormons, either Popes are really prophets (in which case there was no apostasy) or that Mormon leaders are not really Prophets, (in which case, they can;t the authority they claim).

No, that is an example of the fallacy of the false dilemma.

The third alternative is simply this: that if bad behaviour on the part of a leader is a valid criticism of religious truth claims, then who is immune? Either it is not valid, in which case it’s a good idea for anti-Mormons to stop using it, or else it is valid, in which case, how do your leaders stack up?

Either way, the comparison renders the LDS Church a false Church.

So, Todd, keep comparing…I will accept your tacit admission that the LDS is false

Umm, Tom? You ought not to assume that your conclusions are what your interlocutors have in their minds.

My position is this: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and the “bad behaviour” argument is a failed polemic.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Todd520]

STM, I’m dissapointed you completely sidestepped the question i raised:
If you think JS was too flawed an individual to be a proghet (my reading of your logic) then how can can you condone or ignore the same weaknesses in the Catholic leaders?

I don’t believe any LDS member would deny that the Pope can receive prophecy and revelation from God to help guide him and the Catholic Church.

BUT that fact does not prevent the LDS prophet in receiving revelations and spiritual guidance to lead the LDS church

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[twopekinguys]

STM, I’m dissapointed you completely sidestepped the question i raised:
If you think JS was too flawed an individual to be a proghet (my reading of your logic) then how can can you condone or ignore the same weaknesses in the Catholic leaders?

I don’t believe any LDS member would deny that the Pope can receive prophecy and revelation from God to help guide him and the Catholic Church.

BUT that fact does not prevent the LDS prophet in receiving revelations and spiritual guidance to lead the LDS church

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Receiving guidance and spiritual direction from the Holy Spirit is one thing, making prophesies that don’t come true is another.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Again, it only takes one failed prophesy to be a false prophet.