How can you claim joseph smith was a prophet?

[SirThomasMore]

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

 

[SirThomasMore]

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?

 

[Pahoran]

Cool…then that is an admission there is no proof.

No, it is not. It is pointing out that you are demaning references, but you don’t provide them when asked.

And now you have also tacitly admitted that the LDS Church is false. Thank you

It’s amazing how you can turn an explicit denial into a “tacit” admission. What’s the point of discussing anything with you anyway?

Do you ever plan to become civil enough to allow others to own their own positions without you arrogantly presuming to reinterpret them?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

No, it is not. It is pointing out that you are demaning references, but you don’t provide them when asked.

It’s amazing how you can turn an explicit denial into a “tacit” admission. What’s the point of discussing anything with you anyway?

Do you ever plan to become civil enough to allow others to own their own positions without you arrogantly presuming to reinterpret them?

Regards,
Pahoran

your comments are tacit admissions that the LDS Church is false.

 

[Eliza10]

…I love it when Mormons compare their prophets to Catholic Popes.

Yuk, I sure don’t. I don’t like this HUGE list of unsubstantiated one-liners. I guess if it was just one or two real facts it wold be too easy to have an actual discussion about it. But here’s a try:

Even if any of these “facts” are substantiated, what does it have to do with anything. We have had Popes for two thousand years. 265? Well if we do as well as Jesus, it should be simple to find at least 22 really, really bad ones. We know we’ve had some bad popes. So what? They aren’t prophets, they are Popes, and they have never taught error in faith and morals, not ever, ever once! Thats pretty amazing, especially when it comes to the bad popes. Really amazing. The bright hand of God really glows amongst such darkness. So I don’t think you want to compare even one bad Pope to Smith when it comes to teaching error about what God says.

However this is off topic and should be its own thread. Let the Mormon complainer of Popes strart his own thread on the topic.

…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).

:yup:

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

Yes.

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

 

[Todd520]

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.

TPG, being a prophet isn’t about picking the next winning lotto number.

Stole this def. from wiki, so as to be non partisan.
In religion, a prophet is an individual who believes they have been contacted by, or has encountered, the supernatural or the divine, and serves as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other humans The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy.

 

[twopekinguys]

TPG, being a prophet isn’t about picking the next winning lotto number.

Stole this def. from wiki, so as to be non partisan.
In religion, a prophet is an individual who believes they have been contacted by, or has encountered, the supernatural or the divine, and serves as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other humans The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy.

Gee, that’s funny, here are the top 2 definitions I found for the word “prophet” (bolding mine)

–noun

1. a person who speaks **for **god or a deity, or by divine inspiration.
2. (in the Old Testament)
   a. a person chosen to speak **for **God and to guide the people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets.

Hmmm, doesn’t quite match up with your view now does it?

Also, we are still waiting for your references on that little list of yours about the Popes.

Has anyone told you that your posting style is quite similar to “Why Me”? He was good at making posts and statements, then not providing references. Unless it was to Fair or Farms.

 

[Pahoran]

I don’t think we have enough space to cover all of his false prophecies in just one post, but here are the heavy hitters: that the Civil War would lead directly to world war and the end of the world,

Call for references, please; where can we read about this alleged prophecy?

Doctrine and Covenants Section 87 does not make any such assertion, so where is it?

that the Independence and Far West temples would be built,

And you know that they won’t be – how, exactly?

that John Boynton, William Smith, and Lyman Johnson would be living, faithful members until the Second Coming,

Call for references, please; where can I read about this alleged “prophecy?”

that celestial marriage (then defined as temple marriage and polygamy) was to be a ‘new and everlasting’ covenant,

This is not a prophecy, it’s a doctrine. Your point?

and that Jesus would return on either December 23, 1890 or February 16 of 1891.

No such prophecy exists. Sorry.

So answer me this, Parker, how many false prophecies does it take to be a false prophet?

How many did it take to make Jonah or Ezekiel false prophets?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[wanner47]

Call for references, please; where can we read about this alleged prophecy?

Doctrine and Covenants Section 87 does not make any such assertion, so where is it?

And you know that they won’t be – how, exactly?

Call for references, please; where can I read about this alleged “prophecy?”

This is not a prophecy, it’s a doctrine. Your point?

No such prophecy exists. Sorry.

How many did it take to make Jonah or Ezekiel false prophets?

Regards,
Pahoran

There are plenty of references for Joseph Smith’s false prophecies at this website. Are they all fabrications, in your opinion?

An excerpt:

n 1833 and May 1843 Joseph Smith prophesied the destruction of the United States in preparation for the return of the lost tribes and if the wrongs committed against the Mormons went unpunished.

  And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country.  The people of the Lord, those who have complied with the requirements of the new covenant, have already commenced gathering together to Zion, which is in the state of Missouri...Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant, and flee to Zion, before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled.  Remember these things; call upon the Lord while He is near, and seek Him while He may be found, is the exhortation of your unworthy servant.

   (Signed) JOSEPH SMITH, JUN. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 17-18; History of the Church, 1:315-316; 1833)

At another time Joseph Smith said;

  President Smith, in concluding his remarks, said that if the government, which received into its coffers the money of citizens for its public lands, while its officials are rolling in luxury at the expense of its public treasury, cannot protect such citizens in their lives and property, it is an old granny anyhow; and I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrating a foul and corroding blot upon the fair fame of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame. Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of the United States; and if ever you turn your hand against me or the Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of Almighty upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you; for the conversation of this day will stick to you through life.  (History of the Church, 5:394; May 1843)

 

[twopekinguys]

D&C 87 does state “all nations”. Obviously, “all nations” were not involved, so that would be a false prophesy,

Also, the South asked for Great Britain’s help, but they stayed officially neutral. So that would be point 2.

 

[twopekinguys]

I’ll post this again since it appears to have been overlooked.(bolding mine)

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).

 

[Pahoran]

There are plenty of references for Joseph Smith’s false prophecies at this website. Are they all fabrications, in your opinion?

An excerpt:

Alpha and Omega ministries? James White’s outfit? Heaven help us!

Do you find his anti-Catholic polemics as compelling as you find his anti-Mormon stuff? I do, so I’m not relying upon any double standard here.

No, they are not “all fabrications.” They are primarily distortions, misrepresentations and selectively edited reports; often of second-hand materials.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

Good Stuff, Two…

There are a plethora of proofs that show Joe was no prophet of God.

The false prophesies are just one of those proofs.

I wonder if Pahoran will take me up on the challenge that Zerenius and Todd have ignored.

I will go to a Biblical town like Bethlehem, and he can go to a Book of Mormon town- Zerahemla, and we will see who gets to their town first. I am willing to give Pahoran a head start

 

[Pahoran]

D&C 87 does state “all nations”. Obviously, “all nations” were not involved, so that would be a false prophesy,

It doesn’t say that “all nations” would be involved in the American Civil War. You need to read what it actually says, and not what you’d like it to say. It says that wars, plural, would soon start happening; war would be poured out upon all nations, and that the start of it would be “this place,” i.e. S. Carolina.

What have you observed so far to suggest that this is not happening?

Also, the South asked for Great Britain’s help, but they stayed officially neutral. So that would be point 2.

Where does it say that they would not?

I’ll post this again since it appears to have been overlooked.(bolding mine)

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).

Yes, and that was his opinion at the time. It was not given as a prophecy. It was based upon a revelation that he had received earlier, which he recorded thus:

Doctrine and Covenants 130:
14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

Note well: however excited he was about this revelation, this was all he was willing to commit himself to in Scripture.

Any honest critic of Joseph Smith – if such is to be found on the whole face of the earth – will admit that the above cannot possibly support the claim that he prophesied the second coming in 1890, or any other year. On the contrary, he explicitly refused to do so.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[rben20]

i DO believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. i also believe mohammed was a prophet.

They are in no way prophets…just FALSE prophets. How can God have so many messages after fully revealing Himself in Christ? God is not schizophrenic although many in the world would think that since we are fed this **** that we must accept everyone’s religion. If you aren’t Catholic, you got it wrong. You are a Catholic…get it right!! All the Prophets up to Jesus, there are no others after Him. Read the parable about the vineyard and the ones who tend it and how finally the Son was the last one sent to tend the vineyard and was killed. A great illusion to what was to happen to Jesus.

 

[twopekinguys]

It doesn’t say that “all nations” would be involved in the American Civil War. You need to read what it actually says, and not what you’d like it to say. It says that wars, plural, would soon start happening; war would be poured out upon all nations, and that the start of it would be “this place,” i.e. S. Carolina.

What have you observed so far to suggest that this is not happening?

Context is everything. In reading it in context, it is clear that it is about the civil war. If it wasn’t civil war specific, why didn’t it go back to the revolutionary war?

Good try though.

Where does it say that they would not?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was officially neutral in the American Civil War. Confederate strategy for securing independence was largely based on British and French intervention, which never happened; intervention would have meant war with the United States.

From Wiki, but there are plenty of other neutral references if you do a simple google search.

Yes, and that was his opinion at the time. It was not given as a prophecy. It was based upon a revelation that he had received earlier, which he recorded thus:

Doctrine and Covenants 130:
14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

Note well: however excited he was about this revelation, this was all he was willing to commit himself to in Scripture.

Ah yes, the old, he wasn’t speaking as a prophet defense. We see that alot. In fact, there was even a thread or two about it.

There are two conclusions 1. Nobody other than a mormon can really tell when he is speaking as a prophet. 2. He is only speaking as a prophet when it helps the mormon side of the discussion.

Face it, these are just basic examples of failed prophecies, which makes him a false prophet.

Any honest critic of Joseph Smith – if such is to be found on the whole face of the earth – will admit that the above cannot possibly support the claim that he prophesied the second coming in 1890, or any other year. On the contrary, he explicitly refused to do so.

Actually, look at history of the church volume 2.

In Feb 1835 he said “fifty-six” years should wind up the scene. 1835 + 56 = 1891.

Again, good try.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

ParkerD ever insulting, condescending and smug.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Note well: however excited he was about this revelation, this was all he was willing to commit himself to in Scripture.

What do you base this statement on?

If you are basing it on what Smith actually put into the D&C himself, he didn’t commit any of this as scripture. It was added to the LDS version of the D&C long after he was dead.

 

[Pahoran]

Context is everything. In reading it in context, it is clear that it is about the civil war. If it wasn’t civil war specific, why didn’t it go back to the revolutionary war?

Well, duh!

Could it be that the revolutionary war wasn’t still future?

The prophecy describes future wars. Starting in the near future and “panning” down to the Second Coming of Christ.

Sorry twopekinguys, but that was a very ordinary effort.

Good try though.

Why thank you for your very condescending pat on the head. Do I get a lollipop too?

I’m sorry that I cannot return the compliment.

Unlike your good self, I believe the prophecy in question to be sacred scripture. Unlike your good self, I’m not trying to find something to debunk. Unlike your good self, I’m actually making a good faith effort to understand what it actually means.

As a result of which, unlike your good self, I do understand it; and you do not.

I’ll type this r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y so you might be able to keep up:

Section.
87.
Does.
Not.
Talk.
Only.
About.
The.
Civil.
War.

When you actually grasp this fact, you’ll be making a “good try.”

Until then, you’re not even making an effort at all.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was officially neutral in the American Civil War. Confederate strategy for securing independence was largely based on British and French intervention, which never happened; intervention would have meant war with the United States.

So it would.

Section 87 does not say that the UK would intervene.

Section 87 says that the South would “call upon” the UK.

And so they did; Google Mason and Slidell.

However, I repeat: Section 87 does not say that the UK would answer the call that the South would extend.

What it says instead is that the UK would call upon other nations in order to defend herself against other nations. (Entirely from memory.)

Which did indeed happen – for the first time in modern history – in 1914.

(Unless you count the Boer War; but I don’t think we do. The UK only called upon her own empire in that one. But even if you insist that that counts, the Boer war was still in the future in 1832.)

So far, Joseph keeps hitting those bullseyes.

From Wiki, but there are plenty of other neutral references if you do a simple google search.

One of you Peking guys should tell the other Peking guy not to assume that I don’t already know this stuff; because, in fact, I do.

The fact is that you have not understood the section in question. I don’t think you’ve even tried.

Ah yes, the old, he wasn’t speaking as a prophet defense. We see that alot. In fact, there was even a thread or two about it.

There are two conclusions 1. Nobody other than a mormon can really tell when he is speaking as a prophet. 2. He is only speaking as a prophet when it helps the mormon side of the discussion.

How about: 3. He is speaking as a prophet when he dictates it as a revelation.

In fact, how about this: you have the simple courage to allow Latter-day Saints to speak for our own faith tradition, and you speak for yours.

If you are unable to do that, then that is a “tacit admission” (following your dear friend SirThomasMore) that you cannot handle a discussion with us unless you control both sides of it; isn’t that right?

Face it, these are just basic examples of failed prophecies, which makes him a false prophet.

Face it: they are no such thing, and you cannot make them such without resorting to heavy-handed misreading thereof.

Actually, look at history of the church volume 2.

Thank you, I have it on my shelf.

In Feb 1835 he said “fifty-six” years should wind up the scene. 1835 + 56 = 1891.

Funnily enough, I can count. The issue is not what Joseph thought; it is what he was prepared to attribute to revelation. His opinion about what “should” happen was emphatically NOT it.

Again, good try.

Again, if you’re going to try patronising someone, you really ought to pick someone who knows less about the subject than you do.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

What do you base this statement on?

If you are basing it on what Smith actually put into the D&C himself, he didn’t commit any of this as scripture. It was added to the LDS version of the D&C long after he was dead.

He did, however, dictate it as a revelation. Didn’t you know that? The sections of the Doctrine and Covenants are not just random sayings of his, you know.

If there is even one Catholic here on Catholic Answers who knows how to interact with members of other faith traditions, they will tell you that the very first rule of interfaith dialogue is this:

You speak for your faith tradition and I’ll speak for mine.

The minute you arrogate to yourselves the role of dictating to us which of our texts are binding upon us, and what they mean, you have ceased to even pretend to be carrying on any sort of dialogue.

At all.

So how about it, Rebecca? Are you game?

Regards,
Pahoran