LDS claim about J. Smith

[chb03c]

I started a thread similar to this one for Islam.

What I find unusual in the LDS church is their claim that J. Smith brought delivered God’s message perfectly. It sounds like to me (just my opinion) if God wanted to deliver ‘absolute truth’ why would he make a prophet do it? (By prophet i mean someone who has a certain union/relationship with God that he/she is able to communicate what is pleasing to God) Obviously the prophet route wasn’t going to work, just look at all the other prophets in history. If everyone was just going to apostrate from God’s message anyway; why would God (who is perfect in everyway you look at him) keep going to human beings, who are not perfect to deliver his message? It seems to me that God would finally just say “If you want to do things right you gotta do it yourself!”

PS. I kind of copied and pasted some from the thread I started before sence I wanted to basicly say the same thing. So if somethings don’t make sence ill try and correct it.

 

[Scotchamoe]

Just a real quick observation concerning your post…

I would tend to agree with you if you were insinuating that God’s messages through the prophets were always getting misinterpreted by the prophets themself.

If that were the case, then as we know, that would prove itself false prophesies and false prophets.

I understand where you were going, or what you are trying to discuss. As far as Joseph Smith, many of his prophesies have been proven incorrect time and time again. The Mormon church has issued a statement to indicate that if a prophet is only right 10%(+/-) of the time, then the prophesy can be regarded as truth and divinely inspired.

It’s also interesting to note, that the 2 individuals that were presented to Joseph Smith were The Father and the Son. If this were true, then isn’t the fullness of God present? Father, Son and Holy Spirit (being the power that brought them there)… Hmmm. I recall that God told Moses that no man could see Him in His fullness and live (Exodus 33 or 34), that’s why Moses only saw His back. Yet Joseph saw God in all 3 persons and still gave false prophesy.

After that aspect alone, I saw too many errors in this belief system. If I “were wrong” to assert this, then according to the Mormons that approached me… good people go to the 2nd heaven anyway. Good people being defined, by them, as not depraved or ignorant of all scripture.

RIP Joe… you’ll need your strength soon.

In Christ,
Scotchamoe

 

[IanS]

Am I wrong, or wasn’t St. John the Baptist the last of the profits? And wan’t he 100% correct?

 

[mormon_fool]

Do you guys mind if a clear up some misconceptions?

chb03c:

What I find unusual in the LDS church is their claim that J. Smith brought delivered God’s message perfectly.

Actually the LDS church does not make this claim. The LDS prophet speaks authoratively for God on occassion, but that doesn’t guarantee that the message is perfect, just good enough to not lead people astray. Someone quoted Joseph Smith about how he never said he was perfect, but that the revelations that he taught had no error. This was more of a challenge to his critiics than it was a statement of inerrancy. There are numerous illustrations in LDS scriptures including the Bible where the record of the prophets have the “mistakes of men” in them, are adapted to our capacity to understand them, or only see through a “glass darkly”.

It sounds like to me (just my opinion) if God wanted to deliver ‘absolute truth’ why would he make a prophet do it?

The same question should be asked why this was always God’s* modus operandi *during Bible times. See Amos 3:7 for instance. I believe that God works through prophets to keep his followers all on the same page in the things that matter most.

Obviously the prophet route wasn’t going to work, just look at all the other prophets in history. If everyone was just going to apostrate from God’s message anyway; why would God (who is perfect in everyway you look at him) keep going to human beings, who are not perfect to deliver his message?

This is a humorous analysis of the old prophets, i.e. that they are now outdated because no one listened to them hence they were ineffective. If people reject a true prophet’s counsel because it is too hard or they can’t be trusted, they would do the same if the word came to them directly through the Lord without an intermediary. Luke 16 has an illustration of that point. I suspect God doesn’t use more flashy methods to get his message across because it would make this life less of a test of faith and a less of a growing experience where we learn to dilligently seek truth on our own.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

IanS:

Am I wrong, or wasn’t St. John the Baptist the last of the profits? And wan’t he 100% correct?

John the Baptist was the last prophet before Jesus Christ’s ministry. I am unaware of John predicting the future which is only one of the many possibile things that a prophet might be called to do. The Bible is full of prophets that weren’t 100% correct, though. I find the same excuses that get Bible prophets off the hook work for LDS prophets, people just use inconsistent methodology that favors prophets not in their own country.

After Christ’s ministry the prophets and apostles were part of the foundation of the church he established, so John the Baptist can not be said to be the last prophet by any means.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Scotchamoe:

I understand where you were going, or what you are trying to discuss. As far as Joseph Smith, many of his prophesies have been proven incorrect time and time again.

I think this has been overstated somewhat.

The Mormon church has issued a statement to indicate that if a prophet is only right 10%(+/-) of the time, then the prophesy can be regarded as truth and divinely inspired.

This is hillarious! I would love to see such a statement.

It’s also interesting to note, that the 2 individuals that were presented to Joseph Smith were The Father and the Son.

True that.

If this were true, then isn’t the fullness of God present? Father, Son and Holy Spirit (being the power that brought them there)…

I don’t recall the Holy Spirit being mentioned in any of the First Vision narrative.

Hmmm. I recall that God told Moses that no man could see Him in His fullness and live (Exodus 33 or 34), that’s why Moses only saw His back.

I agree that no one man see God and live. The exception to the rule is when God uses his power to preserve someone’s life when He appears. Moses on other occassions saw God, the difference between those occassions is that God was displeased with the lack of righteousness of the people at that time and wasn’t up to blessing them with his full presence. Moses’s experience also solidly hints that God does have a back, hence is anthromorphic! Oh well, this can always be allegorized away.

Yet Joseph saw God in all 3 persons and still gave false prophesy

.

See my comments about the Holy Spirit above, although Joseph the prophet certainly was moved upon at times with the Holy Ghost, this has never been a guarantee of perfect communication. Despite the lack of perfection of my fellow human beings, I have faith that the prophets have been called of God to direct our paths. For me it is safe to follow a prophet, and unsafe not to.

After that aspect alone, I saw too many errors in this belief system. If I “were wrong” to assert this, then according to the Mormons that approached me… good people go to the 2nd heaven anyway. Good people being defined, by them, as not depraved or ignorant of all scripture.

Sounds like you are playing Pascal’s wager safe. By the way, mormons let God judge the good people from the bad.

Thanks for your contribution. I enjoy hearing from your point of view.

–fool

 

[IanS]

mormon fool:

John the Baptist was the last prophet before Jesus Christ’s ministry. I am unaware of John predicting the future which is only one of the many possibile things that a prophet might be called to do. The Bible is full of prophets that weren’t 100% correct, though. I find the same excuses that get Bible prophets off the hook work for LDS prophets, people just use inconsistent methodology that favors prophets not in their own country.

After Christ’s ministry the prophets and apostles were part of the foundation of the church he established, so John the Baptist can not be said to be the last prophet by any means.

–fool

Dear Fool:

I know this may sound strange, but as a Catholic I can understand how you may feel. I feel we are both hated by others not by what they know about us but more by what the perceive about us. I am a firefighter, and one of my partners is a Mormon. He is one of the most decent and moral people I have ever had the honor to know, and I would give my life for him in a second.

However, I must disagree with you regarding the prophets. Not because of my own perception, but because of what Sacred Scripture says:

Matt.11:13; For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John;
Luke 16:16, "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently.
Heb. 1:1-2, In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
See also 1 Peter 1:10-12:

 

[mormon_fool]

IanS,

Thank you for your generous and uplifting comments. I enjoy participating on these boards where there is so much mutual respect for fellow participants. I know I can not take Catholic thinking lightly on issues of apostolic succession and that after Jesus appeared, he challenged the old way of doing things at set up new ones.

I think that it was fair to conclude from the “until John” was made much like the people of Moses’s time could say God had spoken through prophets “until Moses”. In other words, it is statement that is allows for updates as events unfold.

It is undeniable that the New Testament speaks of prophets after John’s and Jesus’s deaths. My earlier post had a reference to Eph. 2:20 but here is a list of some NT scriptures about NT-era prophets
Acts 11: 27
Acts 13: 1
Acts 15: 32
Acts 21: 10
1 Cor. 12: 28
Eph. 2: 20
James 5: 10

and interstingly enough John reveals about at least 2 prophets in the last days: Rev. 11: 10.

Despite the prophets mentioned in the NT, it is clear that the apostles hold the most authority to lead the church. In fact it can be argued that the apostles took over all the functions of the OT model prophets, subjected NT non-apostolic prophets, and were essentially prophets themselves.

The Hebrew scripture you helpfully cited can be interpretted that even better than God speaking in times past, that recent events were even more glorious than the past because of the recent revelation of God through His Son. But there is no mention that prophets were no longer necessary. I doubt any of the NT prophets who lived during and after Paul’s ministry would have interpretted that passage that way.

I think that we both agree that at some point after the writings comprising the New Testament were written the role of the living prophets in the church greatly diminished, although I get the impression it would be inaccurate to say there are no prophets in the Catholic church today (correct me if I am wrong?). They just can’t relay a public revelation from God. Anyway I don’t have awhole lot of background of catholic thought in this area so I just checked out the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject and am pleased that they make some of the same observations I did.

I appreciate the service you give in keeping us safe. I liked the movie about the catholic firefighter, Ladder 49. Thanks for responding!

–fool

 

[IanS]

mormon fool:

IanS,

Thank you for your generous and uplifting comments. I enjoy participating on these boards where there is so much mutual respect for fellow participants. I know I can not take Catholic thinking lightly on issues of apostolic succession and that after Jesus appeared, he challenged the old way of doing things at set up new ones.

I think that it was fair to conclude from the “until John” was made much like the people of Moses’s time could say God had spoken through prophets “until Moses”. In other words, it is statement that is allows for updates as events unfold.

It is undeniable that the New Testament speaks of prophets after John’s and Jesus’s deaths. My earlier post had a reference to Eph. 2:20 but here is a list of some NT scriptures about NT-era prophets
Acts 11: 27
Acts 13: 1
Acts 15: 32
Acts 21: 10
1 Cor. 12: 28
Eph. 2: 20
James 5: 10

and interstingly enough John reveals about at least 2 prophets in the last days: Rev. 11: 10.

Despite the prophets mentioned in the NT, it is clear that the apostles hold the most authority to lead the church. In fact it can be argued that the apostles took over all the functions of the OT model prophets, subjected NT non-apostolic prophets, and were essentially prophets themselves.

The Hebrew scripture you helpfully cited can be interpretted that even better than God speaking in times past, that recent events were even more glorious than the past because of the recent revelation of God through His Son. But there is no mention that prophets were no longer necessary. I doubt any of the NT prophets who lived during and after Paul’s ministry would have interpretted that passage that way.

I think that we both agree that at some point after the writings comprising the New Testament were written the role of the living prophets in the church greatly diminished, although I get the impression it would be inaccurate to say there are no prophets in the Catholic church today (correct me if I am wrong?). They just can’t relay a public revelation from God. Anyway I don’t have awhole lot of background of catholic thought in this area so I just checked out the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject and am pleased that they make some of the same observations I did.

I appreciate the service you give in keeping us safe. I liked the movie about the catholic firefighter, Ladder 49. Thanks for responding!

–fool

Wow! Thank you very much for that very complete response. You obviously know your faith very well. I totally respect that .

Based on what you’ve said, am I to understand that the revelations of Joseph Smith are above that of the Apostles who walked and talked with Jesus himself?

I am not aware of any prophets after John the Baptist in the Catholic Church. There have been many Saints, mystics, and visionaries, but I am not aware of anyone who has claimed to be prophet.

Also, I saw Ladder 49. It was a good movie, but I did not like the way it stereotyped Catholic firefighters. We’re not all a bunch of crass lunkheads. Well, maybe sometimes.

 

[Brad_Haas]

Mormon fool,

I recall mention of female prophets in the New Testament, and certainly women were prophets in the Old Testament. Am I mistaken? What are LDS beliefs about this?

I would also like to point out Catholic belief on participation in Christ’s prophetic office: the Catechism’s section on the “Holy Catholic Church” includes those beliefs. The entire section is one of my favorites, and I consider it well worth reading, but the “prophetic office” parts in particular are paragraphs 888-892 and 904-907.

 

[mormon_fool]

IanS:

Based on what you’ve said, am I to understand that the revelations of Joseph Smith are above that of the Apostles who walked and talked with Jesus himself?

This is actually an interesting question. Mormons have the feeling that new prophets trump dead ones if there is a conflict real or imagined. However it is also understood that new revelation and teachings should be in accord with the scriptures. In some cases, LDS have to seek after personal revelation to get a witness for matters that affect them. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is an elaborate check and balance system between scriptural precedence, the living prophet, and individual members.

I am not aware of any prophets after John the Baptist in the Catholic Church. There have been many Saints, mystics, and visionaries, but I am not aware of anyone who has claimed to be prophet.

Brad’s CCC link shows that there are “participants” in the “prophetic office”. Perhaps calling one a prophet in the catholic church may be too strong of language. I will have to be more careful.

Also, I saw Ladder 49. It was a good movie, but I did not like the way it stereotyped Catholic firefighters. We’re not all a bunch of crass lunkheads. Well, maybe sometimes.

I attribute the crassness to Hollywood, not Catholicism. I had the more inspirational parts of the film in mind when I mentioned it.

–fool

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mormon fool:

and interstingly enough John reveals about at least 2 prophets in the last days: Rev. 11: 10.

most biblical scholars will tell you that the last two prophets spoken of in rev. 11:10 are probably elijah and enoch because they never experienced death and were assumed bodily into heaven.

 

[mormon_fool]

Brad Haas:

Mormon fool,

I recall mention of female prophets in the New Testament, and certainly women were prophets in the Old Testament. Am I mistaken? What are LDS beliefs about this?

I would also like to point out Catholic belief on participation in Christ’s prophetic office: the Catechism’s section on the “Holy Catholic Church” includes those beliefs. The entire section is one of my favorites, and I consider it well worth reading, but the “prophetic office” parts in particular are paragraphs 888-892 and 904-907.

Thanks for your link, it has helped clear things up for me somewhat. You write in regards to prophetess mentioned in the Bible. I found two interesting remarks by some LDS commentators.

 [%between%](javascript:parapopup('40');)But what of the title "prophetess"? In my studies, I have found it to be a term applied variously to wives of prophets, poetesses, and a few women who possessed the power to prophesy, who declared that they spoke God's message, and whose prophecies were fulfilled. Priesthood ordination is not a prerequisite for possessing this gift. Prophecies can be spoken by men and women, adults and children. Moses outlined in detail how a woman could take upon herself the vows of a Nazarite. (See Numbers 6:2-8.) Luke, in the book of Acts, tells of four young girls who prophesied. (See Acts 21:19.) And Jesus, visiting the Nephites, taught their children and opened their mouths. Babes spoke things too wondrous to be recorded. (See 3 Nephi 26:14.) The prophet Joel looked forward to a day when "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Joel 2:28), a promise the angel Moroni repeated to Joseph Smith (see Joseph Smith 2:41 ). Again speaking to Joseph Smith, the Lord emphasized in his explanation of Malachi that things formerly hidden from the wise would be revealed to babes and sucklings in this dispensation. (See Doctrine and Covenants 128:18.)

-- in *Our Sisters in the Bible* by Jerrie W. Hurd p. 53

Wilford Woodruff: “Anybody is a prophet who has a testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy.” (JD 13:165.) [sounds to me like a Revelation passage].

So in essence, there is at least three ways LDS use the word prophet to refer to modern people. The first two treat it as a priesthood office. The prophet, denoted by the definitive article, usually refers to the current president of the church or a past one. The apostles are also sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators using a second sense of the word. Finally anyone who has a testimony of Christ can be considered a prophet. In the last sense a woman can be considered a *prophetess.
*

The ancients had their own views of what a prophet was, which I expect shares many commonalities with LDS usage if we were to compile a list of prophet motifs from the Bible. But to say it is an exact match would be presentism fallacy.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Semper Fi:

most biblical scholars will tell you that the last two prophets spoken of in rev. 11:10 are probably elijah and enoch because they never experienced death and were assumed bodily into heaven.

An intriguing thought! I would be sad to see two prophets who had been assumed into heaven be killed and left on the streets. I am curious to what your references are to most scholars? It seems like a speculative leap to actually identify them.

–fool

 

[chb03c]

Thank you everyone for there opinions and responses. And Mormon fool thank you for participating in this forum and giving us your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Just so we can swing a little bit more into the topic of the thread. Since the Mormon Church says that a prophet does not have to be 100% correct all the time does this not exclude there prophecy. Also according to this statement by the Mormon church just about anyone could be a prophet don’t you think that is a little dangerous for someone’s faith? I mean techniqually anyone could walk into a church and claim that they are a prophet from God and you must do A, B and C.

 

[IanS]

mormon fool:

This is actually an interesting question. Mormons have the feeling that new prophets trump dead ones if there is a conflict real or imagined. However it is also understood that new revelation and teachings should be in accord with the scriptures. In some cases, LDS have to seek after personal revelation to get a witness for matters that affect them. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is an elaborate check and balance system between scriptural precedence, the living prophet, and individual members.

I’m afraid I just don’t agree with the Mormon feeling about living prophets. I don’t mean to get in a scripture slinging contest with you, but your view is not in accord with what is stated in 1 Corinthians, which clearly states that God appointed the Apostles to be first in the church and above all others:

**1 Cor. 12:28 ** And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

 

[IanS]

mormon fool:

IanS,

It is undeniable that the New Testament speaks of prophets after John’s and Jesus’s deaths. My earlier post had a reference to Eph. 2:20 but here is a list of some NT scriptures about NT-era prophets
Acts 11: 27
Acts 13: 1
Acts 15: 32
Acts 21: 10
1 Cor. 12: 28
Eph. 2: 20
James 5: 10

and interstingly enough John reveals about at least 2 prophets in the last days: Rev. 11: 10.

–fool

I took the time to sit and study all of the scripture you referred to above. Granted, at first it seems impressive. However, after you read it more carefully you see something quite different:

Acts - In every case you mention above it merely states that prophets were alive at the same time as the apostles. I don’t doubt that for one second. It’s not like every prophet in the world dropped dead after John made his prophesy about the coming of a messiah. Remember, both John and Jesus died quite young. Also, it in no way indicates that these prophets were making prophecies about anything. You’re making some pretty big assumptions here.

Eph and James: The wording in scripture seems to indicate very well that these prophets came before Christ and in no way state that the came after. Again, you’re making some pretty big assumptions here.

I believe Corinthians and Revelations have already been covered.

You are well versed at defending your faith. However, I’m not quite ready to head to Salt Lake City.

 

[majick275]

In addressing the OP, JS situation is somewhat unique in that initially he doesn’t claim a visitation by an angel, but rather by God himself who then tells him “This is my beloved son…” Thus God the Father proves Jesus who then (basically) proves Moroni. This gives a rather closed system with the LDS view that the “spirits” were “tested”.

Now many of us will quickly see the flaw in this and ask “how did know that was really God the Father?” This pretty much brings you straight to the crux of LDS faith… The Testimony. Either you believe in JS as prophet or you do not based on what you accept as the witness of the Holy Spirit. (for most LDS it is a subjective emotional “feeling” often referred to as the “burning in the bosom”)

 

[amgid]

IanS:

However, I must disagree with you regarding the prophets. Not because of my own perception, but because of what Sacred Scripture says:

Matt.11:13; For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John;
Luke 16:16, "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently.

The expression “the law and the prophets” is an idiomatic expression used by the Jews essentially to refer to the “Law of Moses”, meaning the Old Covenant (the Mosaic Law) under which the Jews lived until the coming of Christ. When the Lord told the Jews that “the law and the prophets” were until John, it means that John the Baptist was the last prophet that came under that old covenant. Jesus did away with the old covenant and instituted a new law and a new covenant, and everything after that operates under that new law and covenant. It does not mean that the prophetic office itself was done away.

Heb. 1:1-2, In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

But as others have pointed out, there are plenty of prophets in the NT after Christ.

See also 1 Peter 1:10-12:

But consider the following:

1 Corinthians 12:

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Ephesians 2:

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
amgid

 

[amgid]

Brad Haas:

I recall mention of female prophets in the New Testament, and certainly women were prophets in the Old Testament. Am I mistaken? What are LDS beliefs about this?

In the LDS Church the prophetic gift or spirit is not confined to males. It can be enjoyed by males and females alike. But a woman could not become an Apostle or a President of the Church, because those are priesthood offices, not just prophetic callings, and women do not hold the priesthood in the LDS Church.

amgid