Prophecies of Joseph Smith

[Lumen_Gentium]

BJ, you come to forums.catholic-questions.org…well, then why
don’t you invite your husband to come and visit the site
as well? This forum is very educational to Catholics and
even non-Catholics alike, and of which I think is one of
the many noble purposes why this forum started.
www.catholic.com is also one good site for your husband.
Your husband can learn more about his Catholic faith now
and of which he never did in his younger days.

I agree that a good catechesis is necessary in the
promotion and preservation of the Catholic faith. That is why
Catholic schools exist. I learned much about my Catholic
faith from the Catholic schools I grew up with and at the same
time, I learned also about other religions and learned also to respect those other religions and other people exercising other faiths.

Catechism is even more important these days compared to the early dawn of Christianity when it was easier to spread the Gospels and the faith among pagans and unbelievers. What I mean to say is that it is easier to convert a pagan or an unbeliever to Christianity than a Christian to be converted to be a Catholic, a true Christian.

Catechism is not only for the education and promotion of the Catholic faith, but is also for its defense. It is the duty of a good Catholic to teach Catechism to fellow Catholics especially those
who don’t fully understand the faith.

PAX.

Chris-WA:

I don’t agree with this at all, because I’ve attended sacrament meetings with my wife in different parts of the country, and rarely does a testimony end like you say. It’s usually something like this: “I know the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet.” That is the most common testimony I’ve heard. Never have I heard anyone say, "I know the Bible is true," and rarely have I heard “I know that Jesus Christ is my savior and redeemer” as the ending testimony to someone’s talk.

BJ, you definitely point out some truth here. I believe the lack of good catechesis is the single biggest reason why we lose Catholics to other churches. The lack of education makes Catholics very vulnerable to other religions. But you need to judge the Catholic Church’s teachings by the content, not by how well (or poorly) the content is taught. Of course, the lack of weekly Sunday school doesn’t excuse a Catholic for not knowing their faith. There are plenty of good resources out there and all it takes will. If your husband really wants to know his faith, their are good resources everywhere for him to read, see, or hear.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Lumen,
Thank you for the suggestion. My husband is handicapped (paralyzed on the right side)and can’t use the computer except if I pull up the subject, then he can read it. He has a copy of a book called “Handbook for Today’s Catholics”. This book is answering a lot of questions for him and he reads to me from the book every day. Plus I gave him the Pope’s book called “John Paul II In My Own Words” for Christmas, and he loves that book. I discuss and read from the forum to him every day. He gets a kick out of some of the answers. When I first came to the forum the Catholics ate me up and spit me out. But, now they are usually very polite and answer my questions even if I am off the subject(which I am again) sorry folks. Also, this forum is in the site Catholics.com so that is how I found the forum. I have read and printed out a lot of the subjects from the home page and my husband and I have found some answers to questions that way.
Thanks again for your suggestions,

BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

tkdnick:

Oh, I was making no claim to whether JS’s prophecy came true or not (I don’t believe it did), I was just commenting on the Canadian thing since I studied the Civil War in relative detail and never heard that.

Hey Tkdnick,
I never heard the particulars of that prophecy, but hearing it here, I am pretty amazed that he came so close. Also, if you had lived through the Civil War, I am sure you would have thought your world was completely devastated and wiped out. It is easy to look back from 150 years later and say it wasn’t as bad a Joseph Smith said it would be. I think there are a lot of prophecies in the Bible that have not happened yet, so who is to say. My grandmother used to tell me the second coming was very close,probably in my lifetime, now I tell my grandchildren the same thing. No one knows, even the prophets have not been able to p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact time and place, they deal in general terms and each thinks it is going to happen soon and then it doesn’t. So when the Lord gives these thoughts, I don’t know exactly how it happens, but I have an idea it is a lot like the answer to prayer.
Or if you are in tune with Heavenly Father and trying to live correct principles, you will receive revelation to guide you in your lives.
For instance one day I was vacuuming my house when I suddenly had a clear urging to stop immediately and find my 18 month old daughter. My first thought was to finish vacuuming, but the urging was so strong I followed the voice in my mind and went out the door and turned to the right, went to the neighbor’s house and into their back yard and back to an above ground pool where I found my baby floating face down. I could have gone left or could have gone to knock on the door to ask permission, but I walked straight to the pool with just a strong spiritual guidance. I grabbed her up and she gasped and was just fine, she had just barely fallen in, and if I had waited to finish vacuuming, as I wanted to, she would have died, she is now 40 years old and has 5 children of her own.
I know the rest of you are scoffing and laughing and think all kinds of weird things, just as you do about Joseph Smith’s prophecies, but I feel that is the way prophecies are sometimes, they may be a little different when they actually occur, because things can turn out differently according to people’s actions. They are not predestined to turn out exactly as the Spirit might impress on the mind. There are variables that occur according to individual actions. A lot of times prophecies are telling what will happen if people don’t repent and follow the commandments. God does not want to destroy people, so if there is a chance they will listen, He can change His mind about destroying them.
I think the Civil war was pretty devastating and if it happened today I don’t think you would all be saying, “Well, it wasn’t as bad as Joseph Smith predicted”.
BJ

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

BJ, something tells me that the Spirit of God is working
on you and your husband. God indeed is merciful.
The grace of God is flowing to you and your husband
through the people you interact with here in this forum.
God bless you and your husband.

PAX.
BJ Colbert:

Lumen,
Thank you for the suggestion. My husband is handicapped (paralyzed on the right side)and can’t use the computer except if I pull up the subject, then he can read it. He has a copy of a book called “Handbook for Today’s Catholics”. This book is answering a lot of questions for him and he reads to me from the book every day. Plus I gave him the Pope’s book called “John Paul II In My Own Words” for Christmas, and he loves that book. I discuss and read from the forum to him every day. He gets a kick out of some of the answers. When I first came to the forum the Catholics ate me up and spit me out. But, now they are usually very polite and answer my questions even if I am off the subject(which I am again) sorry folks. Also, this forum is in the site Catholics.com so that is how I found the forum. I have read and printed out a lot of the subjects from the home page and my husband and I have found some answers to questions that way.
Thanks again for your suggestions,

BJ

 

[Chris-WA]

One question I’ve always had with the LDS idea of prophets is the fact that they claim a continual succession of prophets since Joseph Smith. It seems to me that prophets in the Old Testament were called at certain specific times for specific needs, especially when the Israelite nation needed strong correction. God would personally call a prophet here and a prophet there for specific circumstances, but not as a line of succession for the leadership of a church. In the LDS church, however, their leaders become prophets over time by making their way up the heiarchy until the current prophet dies and is replaced by another. What makes that person a prophet if he hasn’t been specifically and personally called by God as happened with the Old Testament prophets?

 

[adstrinity]

Just to clarify something said earlier, newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm Pope Honorius I never defined any heresy ex cathedra.

 

[blueadept]

Another bewilderment I’ve had is who will be the next president of the church after Hinkley dies. I’ve been told that its usually the oldest apostle of their twelve apostles and that they do pray about it. Food for thought.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

blueadept:

Another bewilderment I’ve had is who will be the next president of the church after Hinkley dies. I’ve been told that its usually the oldest apostle of their twelve apostles and that they do pray about it. Food for thought.

You have it right, it is pretty much the same as how the Cardinals choose the new Pope. The Apostles meet and pray and fast about it, until they all agree. No one knows who it will be until God puts the name in their minds.
BJ

 

[Chris-WA]

BJ Colbert:

You have it right, it is pretty much the same as how the Cardinals choose the new Pope. The Apostles meet and pray and fast about it, until they all agree. No one knows who it will be until God puts the name in their minds.
BJ

If I understand you correctly, what you’re saying is that the LDS prophet isn’t chosen like the Old Testament prophets were (direct calling from God), but more like the pope is chosen (agreement among the senior leadership). To my knowledge, the only LDS prophet claimed by the Mormons to have been called directly by God was Joseph Smith.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Chris-WA:

If I understand you correctly, what you’re saying is that the LDS prophet isn’t chosen like the Old Testament prophets were (direct calling from God), but more like the pope is chosen (agreement among the senior leadership). To my knowledge, the only LDS prophet claimed by the Mormons to have been called directly by God was Joseph Smith.

We believe it is a direct calling from God, and I would think that you would believe your Cardinals are guided by God to choose the man that God wants to be Pope.
(I believe) that all jobs in the church are direct callings from God. He does not personally appear, but He guides the leaders to choose the one He wants to fulfill a certain position.
I would think that Priests etc in the Catholic church are called in the same way, they must feel that spirit to dedicate their lives to the Lord. They learn and grow with each calling until one of them is dedicated and educated in the gospel enough to be chosen as Pope, the spiritual leader of the Church.
BJ

 

[Chris-WA]

BJ Colbert:

We believe it is a direct calling from God, and I would think that you would believe your Cardinals are guided by God to choose the man that God wants to be Pope.
(I believe) that all jobs in the church are direct callings from God. He does not personally appear, but He guides the leaders to choose the one He wants to fulfill a certain position.
I would think that Priests etc in the Catholic church are called in the same way, they must feel that spirit to dedicate their lives to the Lord. They learn and grow with each calling until one of them is dedicated and educated in the gospel enough to be chosen as Pope, the spiritual leader of the Church.
BJ

Yes I believe the Cardinals are guided by the Holy Spirit through prayer in their selection of the new pope, but we don’t believe the pope is a prophet. He is the prime minister of God’s kingdom on earth. When I say “direct calling,” I mean God appearing in some extraordinary way as He did when he called the prophets of the Old Testament (voice from heaven, appearance from angels, burning bush, you get what I mean). That is one reason why I think we differentiate between “prophet” and pope. We believe prophets were called in extraordinary ways for very specific reasons to do a specific thing, usually when Israel had strayed from the path and needed radical correction. What I’m saying is that I think the LDS idea of a prophet is quite different from what is found in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, prophets were called at different times for different reasons, all in preparation for the eventual coming of the messiah and the establishment of a worldwide church. Why does the LDS church believe each prophet is succeeded by another prophet, especially with the manner with which he is chosen?

 

[BDawg]

Hi everyone,

Sorry I’ve been gone for a few days. I have a couple comments regarding ex-mo’s examples of alleged false prophecies.

First, regarding the “56-year” prophecy, if you look at the actual language of the revelation (rather than some second- or third-hand report of what he said on some occasion), you get quite a different picture.

“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:*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. *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. *I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.” (D&C 130:14-17)

Later JS may have assumed it probably did refer to the Second Coming (he was, after all, a fallible human being), but the revelation itself is a true prophecy. At the time, the Millerites were making a lot of noise predicting the Second Coming in about 1844, but Joseph Smith prophesied that it wouldn’t happen till at least 1891. He was right.

Second, regarding the prophecy that the U.S. government would be overthrown, I have seen two interpretations. 1) The U.S. government did make some attempt to help the Saints after they had been expelled from Missouri, so maybe this kept them from complete destruction. 2) The people who were in power in the government at the time (the Whig party) were overthrown in a few years, and the whole party was completely dissolved, never to be heard from again. I’ll try to look up more info on this, but my perspective is that this was another true prophecy.

BDawg

 

[ex-mormon]

BDawg:

Hi everyone,

Second, regarding the prophecy that the U.S. government would be overthrown, I have seen two interpretations. 1) The U.S. government did make some attempt to help the Saints after they had been expelled from Missouri, so maybe this kept them from complete destruction. 2) The people who were in power in the government at the time (the Whig party) were overthrown in a few years, and the whole party was completely dissolved, never to be heard from again. I’ll try to look up more info on this, but my perspective is that this was another true prophecy.

BDawg

BDawg,

1. What attempt did the US Goverment make to help the Saints after they had been expelled from Missouri? I would like to see a history book from a legitimate source on this subject, not “Revisionist History”.
2. When did a political party become the US Government? Correct me if I am wrong but I was always taught that we are a Representative Republic not a government based on a one Party system. Your statement would infer that every representative belonged to the Whig party. I would also like to bring up your choice of the word “overthrown” wouldn’t it be more honest to use the phrase “Voted Out”. The name of the Whig party was disolved but not the people involved, I believe it was replaced with the Republican Party. Secondly the part of the prophecy that said not a potsherd would be left has not been addresed by your explanation.

curious,

ex-mo

 

[BDawg]

Hi ex-mo,

Here is a cut-and-paste from Russell Anderson’s apologetics site. It is part of a response to Ed Decker’s “To Moroni With Love” pamphlet:
Russell Anderson:

Let’s analyze the prophecy. Joseph Smith said, if Congress does not bring justice to the Saints, “they shall be broken up as a government.” “They” refers to Congress. Congress would be broken up as a government. In other words, those in office not voting in favor of the Saints would be broken up, or removed from office; not that the government of the United States, which Joseph considered to be inspired of God, would cease to exist. When Joseph says there won’t be so much as a grease spot left, he does not mean the government of the United States; the “them” refers to the individual congressmen who will be removed from power.

B. H. Roberts, a Latter-day Saint historian, made this comment in reference to this prophecy:

“This prediction doubtless has reference to the party in power; to the ‘government’ considered as the administration; not to the ‘government’ considered as the country; but the administration party, the Democratic Party, which had controlled the destiny of the country for forty years. It is a matter of history that a few years later the party then in power lost control of the national government, followed by the terrible conflict of the Civil War. The party against which the above prediction was made so far lost its influence that it did not again return to power to a quarter of a century; and when it did return to power it was with such modified views as to many great questions of government, that it could scarcely be regarded as the same party except in name.” D.H.C. 6:116

I might add that it was the 28th Congress that was in office when Joseph Smith made this prophecy. Of the 296 that served during this Congress, 177 were Democrats and 111 were Whigs. The 28th Congress ended on March 3, 1845. 86 Democrats lost their seat in government and 59 Whigs, plus 6 others, for a total of 151 Congressmen that did not return to government for the 29th Congress. At the end of the 29th Congress, 50 Democrats, 27 Whigs, and 2 others that were in office during the 28th and 29th Congress lost their seats in Congress. Thus, at the beginning of the 30th Congress in March of 1847, 230 of the original 296 were no longer in power. This amounts to 78 percent of Congress. By 1849, 88 percent of the 28th Congress were no longer in office and by 1851, just 8 years after Joseph’s prophecy, 94 percent were gone.

It becomes apparent that the grease spot that was left was not very big. The 6 percent that remained in office may not have voted against the Saints anyway. Nonetheless, as the sins of Manasseh were slow in bringing justice, the Civil War may have been punishment enough for a modern day Israel.

The Lord has said, “And behold, I, the Lord declare unto you, and my words are sure and shall not fail . . . all things must come to pass in their time.” (Doctrine & Covenants 64:31-32)

Sorry, but I’m just not committed enough to this BB to go to the library and look up all the historical claims for you. If you want to claim it’s all bunk, I probably won’t bother trying to prove you wrong.

BDawg

 

[BDawg]

Here’s another quotation from Gilbert Scharff’s response to the book, “The God Makers.”

"[Joseph Smith]
in May 1843 said: ’ … and I prophesy in the name of the Lard 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. ’ " The book then claims this is an obviously false prophecy.

It is a known fact that many of the bitterest Civil War battles, with some of the greatest suffering and bloodshed, took place in the state of Missouri. There are five possibilities that need to be considered concerning this statement made during a visit Joseph Smith had with Stephen A. Douglas.

1. The scribe, William Clayton, did not get it right.
2. Fulfillment of the prophecy is still in the future.
3. The destruction may have referred to Missouri only.
4. The prophecy as worded is obviously a conditional one. The United States did redress the Latter-day Saints to some extent for wrongs committed against them and thus the harshness of the fate of Missouri (or the United States) was reduced. The United States inviting the Saints to volunteer five hundred men to help in the 1846 war with Mexico might be considered partial redress because it provided desperately needed funds for the Latter-day Saints to finance the pioneer trek to Utah. President Polk at this time also promised Latter-day Saints safety as they travelled through Indian lands to the west. When the personal papers of James K. Polk, the U.S. president who asked Latter-day Saints to form a Mormon Battalion, were recently opened, it was found that he considered his action to help the Latter-day Saints. The granting of territorial status to the Mormons might also be considered a partial redress for wrongs.
5. We must remember that prophets are human and hence are not infallible. See comments about page 79, line 21 for earlier discussion.

This encounter of Joseph Smith with Stephen A. Douglas contains another interesting prediction which was completely fulfilled, that the book leaves out. Joseph said: “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” (HC 5:394).

This was literally fulfilled. When Douglas ran for the Presidency in 1860 he was considered a sure winner. During the campaign he did speak out against Latter-day Saints. Douglas suffered one of the major political upsets in U.S. history when he was defeated by Abraham Lincoln. Less than a year later, at age forty-cight, he was dead.

Hope this helps.

BDawg

 

[ex-mormon]

BDawg:

Hi ex-mo,

Here is a cut-and-paste from Russell Anderson’s apologetics site. It is part of a response to Ed Decker’s “To Moroni With Love” pamphlet:

Sorry, but I’m just not committed enough to this BB to go to the library and look up all the historical claims for you. If you want to claim it’s all bunk, I probably won’t bother trying to prove you wrong.

BDawg

Hi BDawg,

I wouldn’t use the term “bunk”, I would call it a stretch. Thanks for the info.

ex-mo

 

[BDawg]

ex-mormon:

Hi BDawg,

I wouldn’t use the term “bunk”, I would call it a stretch. Thanks for the info.

ex-mo

I can dig. But consider this. As I understand it, Catholicism has pretty much rejected the idea of a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on the earth. However, this is clearly predicted by John in the Revelation. All through the second century, the early Fathers believed it would be literally fulfilled. From our perspective, the prophecy just hasn’t been fulfilled, yet. From most Catholics’ perspectives, it will be fulfilled in some “spiritual” sense. Can you see how others might see some Catholic interpretations of prophecy as a “stretch”?

I appreciate the fact that you can be fair-minded enough to make this last comment, though.

BDawg

 

[Seeks_God]

BDawg:

I can dig. But consider this. As I understand it, Catholicism has pretty much rejected the idea of a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on the earth. However, this is clearly predicted by John in the Revelation. All through the second century, the early Fathers believed it would be literally fulfilled. From our perspective, the prophecy just hasn’t been fulfilled, yet. From most Catholics’ perspectives, it will be fulfilled in some “spiritual” sense. Can you see how others might see some Catholic interpretations of prophecy as a “stretch”?

I appreciate the fact that you can be fair-minded enough to make this last comment, though.

BDawg

I might be wrong but the official teaching of The Church is that Revelation is already under way. We are in the last times and interpreting numbers like 1000 is difficult at best because numbers like 1000 were usually symbollic for “very large” The apostles of the New Testament also beleived the Jesus’ Second Coming was imminent and would happen during their life time. The Catholic Church rejects attempts at predicting Christ’s Second Coming because in Christ’s own words he “will come like a thief in the night” and “no one knows but the Father.” This essentially means that it is futil to predict when the world will end, the focus should be on redemption now.

 

[arthra]

The opinon of the Baha’i ranks right up there with the opinion of the Flat Earth Society and the Reverend Sun Myung Moon.

Hey! Lighten up on the Baha’is! The site you quoted is not an official Baha’i site…

• Art