The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God

[Apache75]

Now He died for our sins. (God asked me if I knew that His son died for our sins in one of my visions) Not what happens to all these people that were left without direction of the church and are sinners? Are you saying that Jesus death was for nothing because He wasn’t finished yet and left others in a state of sin until 1700 years later (not sure of the time)? Your church makes no sense when you look at it this way. Your church states that no one can reach heaven without your ordinances that were given to them by Christ. So all those before died for nothing? If I’m right your church doesn’t believe in Purgatory but yet you do a Baptism for the Dead and whether they accept your gospel depends on where they go correct? So where have these people been after death this whole time?

 

[Apache75]

In all fairness I have not seen “ALL” either but I do know this. The Native Americans have always passed down their history through stories and I cannot find anything that was passed down through my peoples history (Apache) about great cities in America and the use of steel or any of the animals that are supposed to be present here. They hunted a lot and I’m sure that if there these animals here there would have been some record from the Indians that they were in fact here. My Navajo brothers also agree with me on this. They also have no record through stories about this.

 

[Stephen168]

Strike Three

You have struck out twice. Two of my original claims that I have provided empirical evidence for on this thread are true.

Have you found any secular newspaper articles printed before 1834 which prove Joseph Smith claimed he received the Melchizedek Priesthood?

 

[TOmNossor]

In all fairness I have not seen “ALL” either but I do know this.

Thank you for acknowledging this. Sometimes I wonder if I am living in bizarro world or if I have forgotten how to read.

The Native Americans have always passed down their history through stories and I cannot find anything that was passed down through my peoples history (Apache) about great cities in America

The great cities are present in the current archeological record and they are in the correct locations for Sorensen’s Mesoamerican geography of the BOM. I suspect this put these population centers South of the Appache and Navajo. One of the more complex, but confirming aspects for the BOM are associated with population centers and their rise and fall. Recently the large LIDAR survey of this Mesoamerican location shows far higher populations than thought just 2-5 years ago AND also point to other things previously criticized in the BOM concerning defensive structures and waring evidences.

the use of steel or any of the animals that are supposed to be present here.

The use of steel and the absence of animals, most problematically the horse, are issues for BOM truth claims. If I was asked to consider the BOM and only think about steel/metallurgy or only think about horses I would consider the secular/scientific case for the BOM to be very weak. You have highlighted two problematic areas. There are responses to these problems that I think are satisfactory in that they make the problems into weaknesses but not “fatal flaws,” but these responses do not remove the negative impact of these issues.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery ACTED as if they had a commission from Peter and claimed that they receive apostolic authority from angels.

William McLellin said that Joseph Smith never talked about receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood until 1834-35 and Richard Bush in a three hour podcast agrees with McLellin. The only attempt to refute them was a cherry picked newspaper quote which never said Melchizedek Priesthood and turned out to be the newspaper editor mocking the Mormons.
You claim this is not true, but offer no prove.

You also claim they ACTED as if they had a commission for God, yet Cowdery returned to the Methodist Church and Joseph Smith was an adulterer. What are your examples of them acting like they received a commission from God?

 

[TOmNossor]

Now He died for our sins. (God asked me if I knew that His son died for our sins in one of my visions) Not what happens to all these people that were left without direction of the church and are sinners? Are you saying that Jesus death was for nothing because He wasn’t finished yet and left others in a state of sin until 1700 years later (not sure of the time)? Your church makes no sense when you look at it this way. Your church states that no one can reach heaven without your ordinances that were given to them by Christ. So all those before died for nothing? If I’m right your church doesn’t believe in Purgatory but yet you do a Baptism for the Dead and whether they accept your gospel depends on where they go correct? So where have these people been after death this whole time?

That sounds like a wonderful vision. I am amazed at how God avails himself to those who love Him.
I actually think LDS thought has responded well to your concern, but that Catholic thought has developed/changed from its original form to attempt to respond.
I do not think Christ failed or his death was for nothing. I actually believe that Christ and His apostles knew that there would be a loss of the ability to receive public/corporate revelation. That being said, Christ came in the meridian of time when as a PERFECT, SINLESS man He was killed by God’s chosen people. This is important for many reasons, one of which is that it helps me to see the rebellion in my life as a similar rejection and killing of my God. That being said, the culture into which Christ was born and which existed through centuries including the feudal system in Europe was not conducive to prophet/leaders. The vast majority of Catholic Pope’s who lacked the ability to receive public revelation for the entire world, were good men who largely succeeded at not becoming corrupted by the power they possessed, but not all. Society COULD NOT check the power of the men who stumbled because the radical inequality of men was largely a given. Here is an essay I have found illustrative of this (it is very long): https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/
So, it is my position that Christ came at the PERFECT time. That the loss of the ability to receive public revelation was known and planned, but that the witness of Christ (due to pax Romana) and the Bible (due to pax Romana and a level of literacy) were preserved.
Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Now, concerning those who didn’t receive saving ordinances from those with apostolic authority, LDS have consistently taught that we perform “vicarious ordinances” for those who didn’t receive them in this life and that they can accept or reject these in their post mortal life. Everyone will have a “fair and just” opportunity to accept or reject the witness of Christ and the truth of the gospel and ALL ordinances will be performed on their behalf in case they choose to accept them. I do not reject the idea that many Christians received valid baptisms and other ordinances for many years. But, many never met a Christian or heard of Christianity. They lived and died in Asia or in the Americas (away from BOM peoples and Old World Christians). LDS have an answer, we perform vicarious ordinances for these folks.
It is the Catholic Church that really has a problem with these unevangelized folks. The concept of a “Baptism of Desire” has slowly developed to respond to this issue, but it is an imperfect teaching and came much later than the apostolic age. St. Ignatius of Antioch was quite clear that there was no baptism without water. A bigger problem than even this is the inability of those who die before the age or reason to embrace a “Baptism of Desire” and their absolute possession of “original sin.”
Anyway, LDS thought within the first decade or so after the restoration, has had solid teachings concerning the salvation of those who never heard the gospel and never met a minister of the gospel. I believe your concern was addressed by these teachings long ago. The church for 1700 years taught saving truths. Christ was present where two or more were gathered in His name, but the fullness of God’s authority (possessed by St. Peter) was absent.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I think of a Mormon telling a story about entering a home and the only food in the house was two pieces of squomish. And it came to pass that he ate two pieces of squomish.

All Mormonism agrees that he claimed to eat all the the food in the house.

In literature we do find a person who said he said he ate a cookie that was like squomish.

A guy named Mark talked of a man named Dave, who thought his cakes were like squomish. Mark even referred to them as Dave’s Squomish.

Then science proves there is no such thing as squomish. Mormons then claim he never said he ate ALL the food in the house because he never used the word ALL in his story. And there must be squomish because even Mark used the word squomish. He used the word squomish, therefore he believes there is squomish.

Yet, we know that the story describes him eating all the food in the house and that he said it was squomish. Mormons believed it at the time because he said it. And believing there are foods like the mythical squomish does not mean you actually believe in squomish. And it is irrational to believe the Mormon’s story.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery ACTED as if they had a commission from Peter and claimed that they receive apostolic authority from angels.

William McLellin said that Joseph Smith never talked about receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood until 1834-35 and Richard Bush in a three hour podcast agrees with McLellin. The only attempt to refute them was a cherry picked newspaper quote which never said Melchizedek Priesthood and turned out to be the newspaper editor mocking the Mormons.
You claim this is not true, but offer not prove.

First, could you provide a link to Richard Bushman’s three hour podcast. I am a fan and I may not have already listened to it.
The “newspaper quote”(s) and a letter say:

Painesville Telegraph, 16 November 1830:
About Two weeks since some persons came along here with the book, one of whom pretends to have seen Angels, and assisted in translating the plates. He proclaims the destruction upon the world within a few years,–holds forth that the ordinances of the gospel, have not been regularly administered since the days of the Apostles, till the said Smith and himself commenced the work . . . . The name of the person here, who pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels, is Cowdray.”
^^^^^^
The Palmyra Reflector, February 14, 1831:
They then proclaimed that there had been no religion in the world for 1500 years,–that no one had been authorized to preach &c. for that period—that Jo Smith had now received a commission from God for that purpose . . . . Smith (they affirmed) had seen God frequently and personally—Cowdery and his friends had frequent interviews with angels.
^^^^^
Reverend Richmond Taggart to Reverend Jonathan Goings, Cleveland, Ohio, March 2, 1833:
The following Curious occurrence occurred last week in Newburg about 6 miles from this Place [Cleveland, Ohio]. Joe Smith the great Mormonosity was there and held forth, and among other things he told them he had seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them, and that he could perform miracles

So, it cannot be true that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery NEVER spoke of apostolic visits and authority before 1834 because there is empirical evidence that this is not true. It is likely to be true that William McLellin didn’t hear everything related by Joseph Smith.
We also know that the BOM has half a chapter that points to Melchizedek Priesthood AND that the Book of Hebrews has been interpreted by Catholics and other non-LDS to teach a Melchizedek Priesthood. The connection of Peter’s bestowal of authority on Joseph Smith to the term “Melchizedek Priesthood” AND “Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God” is not evident in the any records from before 1834, but it is my position that the most important thing is the reception of Peterine authority. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith told anyone that it was the “Melchizedek Priesthood” he received in 1829, but there is every reason to believe that he told folks that he received authority at the hands of Peter.
Cont.

 

[TOmNossor]

You also claim they ACTED as if they had a commission for God, yet Cowdery returned to the Methodist Church and Joseph Smith was an adulterer. What are your examples of them acting like they received a commission from God?

Cowdery became convinced that Joseph Smith had lost his way and did leave the CoJCoLDS. Perhaps you believe that Christ didn’t perform miracles because Judas Iscariot abandoned Him or because Peter denied him thrice?
Oliver Cowdery however did not deny what had happened to him. He said after Joseph died:

I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character, as those who might believe in my testimony, after I should be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and looked down through time, and witnessed the effects these two must produce,—you would feel what you have never felt, were wicked men conspiring to lessen the effects of your testimony on man, after you should have gone to your long sought rest.

Note here also, Cowdery doesn’t say, “Melchizedek Priesthood,” but this quote comes in the late 1840’s or early 1850’s so Cowdery KNEW what he and Smith had claimed for years. Your “logic” would have us believe that Cowdery never believed he had “Melchizedek Priesthood” or forgot he had it because he doesn’t mention it.

Concerning your adultery comment, LDS do believe that Joseph Smith restored the Old Testament practice of polygamy. That being said, I am not claiming Joseph Smith is “impeccable.” I am claiming that he received authority from Peter.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168,
Now, I know you are quite put out when I do this, but I will still do it.
LDS: Claims of unique Peterine authority almost immediately with surviving records, founding of a church, recorded apostolic healings and blessings, … all within 0-5 years with surviving records showing these things. The first recorded use of the term “Melchizedek Priesthood” is about 4 years after the supposed Peterine authority was passed to Joseph Smith, but the concept of “Melchizedek Priesthood” was already present in the Bible and the BOM which was “translated” in 1829.
Catholic: Claims of unique Peterine authority for the Bishop or Rome don’t happen for >150 years after the death of Peter. Peter’s presence in Rome is of so little importance that some scholars actually question if he was there because it was scarcely recorded (I lean towards the view he was). 4th century invented documents purporting to describe the passing of authority from Peter to Clement (because the Roman church didn’t believe Linus and Cletus were “Bishops of Rome” for many centuries), but nobody today believes these are real or describe a real event. When the claims of Peterine authority does APPEAR, the historical record evidences that those outside of Rome (Firmilian, Cyprian, Tertullian) rejected this Roman authority when they first heard about it. Catholic’s now believe that the Peterine authority DEVELOPED somehow within the Bishop or Rom, but there is no empirical evidence of this authority.
Doesn’t your line of attack on the LDS authority we claim DECIMATE Catholic claims? There is no empirical evidence for the Catholic development theories of Newman, Sullivan, and Eno and these development theories were invented to fill a glaring hole in the historical record.
You have recently added a new claim to this thread concerning “adultery.”
Again I will offer the LDS and the Catholic view:
LDS: Most LDS believe that Joseph Smith was commanded to practice adultery. That much, but probably not ALL, of this adultery did not involved any sex. That whatever marriages were consummated, such was infrequent. That the critics explanation for polygamy “desire for sex” was not well realized through the practice and many other methods of having lots of sex would have obviously been more effective if that was Joseph’s desire. But, the authority of God possessed by Joseph Smith didn’t depend upon him being absolutely impeccable anyway.
Catholic: Most Catholic Popes have been good men who didn’t succumb to the temptation of sexual sin. That being said Pope John XII is said to have turned the Lateran Palace into a brothel and there have been other radically wicked Popes as well. Still, the Catholic asserts that the Peterine authority was validly held by John XII and the Pope does not have to be impeccable or even a good man.
Doesn’t your line of attack on Joseph Smith’s character DECIMATE Catholic truth claims?
Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

It is the Catholic Church that really has a problem with these unevangelized folks. The concept of a “Baptism of Desire” has slowly developed to respond to this issue, but it is an imperfect teaching and came much later than the apostolic age. St. Ignatius of Antioch was quite clear that there was no baptism without water. A bigger problem than even this is the inability of those who die before the age or reason to embrace a “Baptism of Desire” and their absolute possession of “original sin.”

Once again you have placed your imperfect understanding of a concept as fact. Baptism of Desire does NOT replace true baptism. During the time of learning and preparation to enter the Church one has a desire to be baptized. If they should die before the actual time of baptism the Church teaches God, in all his mercy, will treat them as baptized.

This is an area where the LDS do not trust in the mercy of God. The belief that to obtain heaven is left to the workings of man rather than God is a huge problem for the LDS.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

It is the Catholic Church that really has a problem with these unevangelized folks. The concept of a “Baptism of Desire” has slowly developed to respond to this issue, … problem than even this is the inability of those who die before the age or reason to embrace a “Baptism of Desire” and their absolute possession of “original sin.”

Once again you have placed your imperfect understanding of a concept as fact. Baptism of Desire does NOT replace true baptism. During the time of learning and preparation to enter the Church one has a desire to be baptized. If they should die before the actual time of baptism the Church teaches God, in all his mercy, will treat them as baptized.

I am pretty sure you are not correct concerning Catholic teachings. And LDS thought guarantees that no ordinance will hamper an individual’s salvation.
The “Baptism of Desire” was originally conceived as you claim it is today. In the early church (after St. Ignatius of Antioch had offered his thoughts on the ESSENTIAL nature of WATER in baptism, but very early still) it often took time for Catechumens to baptized. The idea of “Baptism of Desire” was ORIGINALLY conceived just as you say to account for those with an intention to be baptized, but who died before. This is what you teach and it was the earliest invocation of “Baptism of Desire.” I do not recall how early.
There has been further development.
Over time, the “problem of the unevangelized” was faced by Catholic thinkers. The idea of “Baptism of Desire” was used to explain that many good people who never heard the gospel MIGHT be saved because of their desire to follow God and/or God’s commandments. An “act of perfect contrition” or “pure love of God” was viewed as a “Baptism of Desire.” This is documented here:
http://www.catholicessentials.net/baptismofdesire.htm

The problem however is that “Baptism of Desire” cannot be applied to Infants because they are neither catechumens who die before being baptized nor (according to Pope XII and others) can they perform and “act of perfect contrition” or “pure love of God.”
In the 20th century Catholic thinkers began to deal with the problem of unbaptized infants (even unborn infants) dying without baptism. Some suggested that aborted babied were martyred for the faith and could receive the “baptism of blood.” This might work for those babies who are killed, but this is far from clear as certainly the aborted baby didn’t “die for the faith.” But, it doesn’t seem to work for babies who die of natural causes in or out of the womb.
The Vatican recently (last 10 years) published a document called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.” I find it to be an important contribution to Catholic thought, but it is not in alignment with the “original intent” of 2 -3 Ecumenical Councils and is absolutely not in alignment with the non-EC Council of Carthage.
So, I think you only speak of the ORIGINAL concept of “Baptism of Desire.” This concept has been extended to what I spoke about. Am I wrong?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Painesville Telegraph, 16 November 1830:
The Golden Bible. – Some two or three years since, an account was given in the papers, of a book purporting to contain new revelations from Heaven, having been dug out of the ground, in Manchester in Ontario County, N. Y. The book, it seems, has made its appearance in this vicinity. – It contains about 500 octavo pages, which is said to be translated from Egyptian Hieroglyphics, on metal plates, by one Smith, who was enabled to read the characters by instruction from Angels.

The Palmyra Reflector, February 14, 1831:
They pretend to heal the sick and work miracles, and had made a number of unsuccessful attempts to do so. The Indians were the ten lost tribes – some of them had already been dipt. From 1 to 200 (whites) had already been in the water, and showed great zeal in this new religion – many were converted before they saw the book. Smith was continually receiving new revelations, and it would probably take him 1000 years to complete them – commissions and papers were exhibited, said to be signed by Christ himself!!!

Receiving angelic visitors? Yes Receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood? No

 

[Stephen168]

John Whitmer, Mormon historian 1830-1838 and witness to the Book of Mormon plates, wrote this about the June 1831 General Conference:

At the conference these were ordained to the high priesthood, namely, Lyman Wight, Sidney Rigdon, John Murdock, Reynolds Cahoon, Harvey Whitlock and Hyrum Smith were ordained by Joseph Smith, Jr., except Sidney Rigdon.

The following by Lyman Wight by commandment. Parley P. Pratt, Thomas B. Marsh, Isaac Morley, Edward Partridge, Joseph Wakefield, Ezra Thayer, Martin Harris, Ezra Booth, who denied the faith, Harvey Whitlock denied the faith, also Joseph Wakefield, Joseph Smith, Sen., Joseph Smith, Jr., John Whitmer. The bishop then proceeded and blessed the above named and others by the laying on of hands. Isaac Morley and John Corrill were ordained as bishop’s counsellors to Edward Partridge.

Richard Bushman:

The Melchizedek Priesthood, Mormons now believe, had been bestowed a year or two earlier with the visit of Peter, James, and John. If so, why did contemporaries say the high priesthood was given for the first time in June 1831? Joseph Smith himself was ordained to this ‘high priesthood’ by Lyman Wight. If Joseph was already an elder and apostle, what was the necessity of being ordained again?

 

[Stephen168]

A few more thoughts from Richard Bushman in his book, Rough Stone Rolling.

As Joseph told the story in 1838, the person said he was John the Baptist and that he had been sent by Peter, James, and John. Then he laid his hands upon their heads to ordain them…That was the story in its ripe form, but Joseph did not tell anyone about John the Baptist at first. Summarizing the key events in his religious life in an 1830 statement, he mentioned translation but said nothing about the restoration of priesthood or the visit of an angel. The first compilation of revelations in 1833 also omitted an account of John the Baptist. David Whitmer later told an interviewer he had heard nothing of John the Baptist until four years after the Church’s organization. Not until writing in his 1832 history did Joseph include “reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of angels to administer the letter of the Gospel” among the cardinal events of his history, a glancing reference at best…The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication. Did Joseph add the stories of angels to embellish his early history and make himself more of a visionary? If so, he made little of the occurrence. Cowdery was the first to recount the story of John’s appearance, not Joseph himself. In an 1834 Church newspaper, Cowdery exulted in his still fresh memory of the experience. ‘On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace unto us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance! When Joseph described John’s visit, he was much more plainspoken. Moreover, he inserted the story into a history composed in 1838 but not published until 1842. It circulated without fanfare, and more like a refurbished memory than a triumphant announcement.

 

[Stephen168]

You also claim they ACTED as if they had a commission for God, yet Cowdery returned to the Methodist Church and Joseph Smith was an adulterer. What are your examples of them acting like they received a commission from God?

Oliver Cowdery…

Yes Cowdery repeated the story for many years after he invented it. Yes, historians believe the Melchizedek Priesthood invention may have been mostly Cowdery’s idea. But this is not acting/action, as in returning to the Methodist Church.

Concerning your adultery comment, LDS do believe that Joseph Smith restored the Old Testament practice of polygamy.

I wouldn’t call forgiving Smith for adultery an action by Smith that shows he may have received the Melchizedek Priesthood. A guy claiming to restore a Christian Church by inventing polygamy to cover for adultery doesn’t seem like a guy who spent time with the first Christians.

 

[Horton]

Is there anything you won’t twist to make it appear it means something other than what it truly mean? I gave you a very valid definition of what baptism of desire is and how it is used. This is your response -

I am pretty sure you are not correct concerning Catholic teachings.

I’m pretty sure I am correct, in fact I know I’m correct.

It does seem odd that you spend all that time trying to tell me I’m wrong and yet you fail to defend your LDS organization when I state a huge problem with it, that problem being a complete and utter lack of faith in God.

Once again, pointing out problems of the Catholic Church does not make the LDS true.

 

[gazelam]

John Whitmer, Mormon historian 1830-1838 and witness to the Book of Mormon plates, wrote this about the June 1831 General Conference:

I’m glad that you agree that John Whitmer saw the golden plates.

 

[AngelaMarie]

Your explanation of the development on the baptism of desire is accurate, to the best of my knowledge.
Catholic doctrines have and do go thru a developmental stage. An informed Catholic would not dispute this.