Question concerning Joseph Smith and the Bible.

[_RockSlider]

Nightlion, it appears you are serious ... all that just gives me a head ache any more ... Sounds like you are serious about taking on apprentices/members?

[_MMAFighter7]

As my fair antagonist has well pointed out I was excommunicated from the LDS Church eighteen years ago next September. I openly professed that LDS leadership was spiritually incompetent. Meaning that they do not comprehend what the gospel of Jesus Christ is and can not rightly guide anyone to accomplish it successfully.

And that of course answers well what I can do for you. The missionaries will tell you to join the Church because you know that it is true. And that's it. Well. of course be a good person, sure.

That is 100% correct. Everytime we get together, such as last night I'm told, "I know that this church is true, I can feel it in my heart." I told one of the missionaries, very respectfully that that sounds arrogant to me. Hopefully that doesn't anybody here, but "I have a feeling in my heart.", just isn't the ultimate determination of what reality is to me.

I will teach you how to appropriately come unto Christ so that he will open and let you into the kingdom of God receiving the earnest of your faith, the unction that warrants you are Christ's, even the promise of the Father, no less than the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. In this day and age of overwhelming forces of spiritual distractions you need a master teacher. Only one who has actually accomplish it knows what you are up against in our day.

This all depends on your willingness to come unto Christ with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy. Let me just give you taste of the difference.

In the sermon on the mount Christ is teaching the real gospel. Of course, what else? In that sermon he admonishes us to take no thought for our lives, what we shall eat, or put on for raiment. He said let tomorrow take thought for itself. Sufficient the day unto the evil thereof. Why? What did he mean? Then he said seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

This is the standard for getting God's attention. For no man comes unto Christ except the Father draws him. If you do not forsake the world and the crafts of men and stop all other concerns in your life, for as long as it takes, and only seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness, you cannot get in. That is why Christ said it. Before God will honor you, you must honor him. Yes, honor him with this degree of respect, faith and desire. All your heart, might, mind and strength is enough.

The only exceptions are involvement in an extraordinary miraculous conversion on the spot with some tremendous act of God manifesting a great event of staged wonder for his own purposes.
That can happen. Why wait? My way is more certain to happen.

Well, the missionaries are not going to tell you anything like that. Why? Because they only want you to join the Church. Nobody in the LDS Church is the least concerned with seeking the kingdom of God and his righteousness. If they were seeking, and that successfully, they could not withhold Zion from being among them.
There is no Zion anywhere among them. Not any. Nowhere.

I have a quick comment/idea/testimony of this. About 2 weeks ago I was woken up by what sounded like someone in my house. I came out of my bed room and thought that I saw someone standing in the living room. I flipped on the hallway light, but there wasn't enough light making it to what I was trying to see, so I slowly walked to the dining room and turned that light on. When I looked around the corner there was nobody there. My doors were locked, and my windows were all closed. I figured it was me being tired and I went back toward my bedroom. Before I could get there something inside of me told me to go sit down at the computer. For the next 4 hours I wrote sometime wonderful about Matthew 5,6,7 and the cost of following Christ.
The next day in the afternoon I was led to start writing about what God says about fear. I wrote for a little while before the missionaries and a few friends showed up to witness to me. Since that day I have not been overcome with the spirit one time. I went from not be able to stop (similar to The Number 23, or Knowing) to having no desire to whatsoever.
Maybe its a coincidence, but I find it interesting, and felt that it kind of went with what you were saying.

A type of fabled Zion fantasy is taken for granted by them in bucket loads of pride and hypocrisy. They are the best of the best and the chosen generation and a royal priesthood. The most choice spirits of Heavenly Father reserved for these last days. They are born of a divine nature which they want you to acknowledge as yours too IF you will agree with them. A sort of immaculate salvation.

That is heady stuff. Why do you need Christ if you already partake of a divine nature that you brought with you from the courts on High? They really are that puffed up. So forget about the meek of the earth and the poor in spirit.

The LDS have a slam dunk on salvation. Christ is only a crutch to fall back on IF one happens to slip and need a Savior. No! It is not so incredible. They will deny this on the surface because it smacks of such arrogance. But deep within it is their entire hope. It is a perfect guise for their hypocrisy. There is no evidence needed to qualify their divine nature. It is a birthright. Because they just know so much.

In their arrogance, only really rotten sinners need a dramatic conversion like a baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. LDS brush off all the commandments and defer to the elitism of a consensus of pride.

Small wonder that the gospel has been formally taken from among them as Christ warned about these days of great pride.
See 3 Nephi 16.

O, let's see, what was it they did to sin against the gospel? Cast out the righteous! Yes! What else? September 15, 1991 Provo, Utah Stake. President John Chamberlain presiding.

I guess that I would not have been this brutal if Ms Buttinsky had not been quite so rude. But this is a tuff crowd. Naysayers all.

I would love to hear what you have to say, or rather what you have to teach in full.

[_Nightlion]

Nightlion, it appears you are serious ... all that just gives me a head ache any more ... Sounds like you are serious about taking on apprentices/members?

I'm so not used to it. Forty years with no positive response has left me rather jaded. My youngest daughter is getting feelings of wanting to come unto Christ and bothers me about how to do that and I am grinding my gears to help her. She will need a community to help her.

I do not want her to pass through my ordeal. Maybe I just need to desire to thrust in my sickle and reap. And remember faith, hope and charity. And yeah, stop being stopped! What hindereth me?

[_Scottie]

So, Nightlion, what can we use to discredit a prophet?

Apparently, from everything I've learned in Mormon Apologetics, we have precedence in the Bible for everything that a normal person would use to call someone a fraud.

Failed prophecies - check
Low morals - check
Questionable activities - check
Using his followers for personal gain - check
Obtaining a harem of females - check
Lying about his activities - check
Fleeing the area when things get to hot - check

-Although Joseph Smith didn't do these items, we could include:
Sacrificing animals and/or people - check
Slaughtering whole cities - check
Rape - check
Incest - check

According to Apologists, LDS Prophets are nothing more than EXTREMELY flawed men and we should expect nothing more from then than a high school guidance counselor. What test would you give a non-LDS prophet to determine if he were really a prophet?

Could you tell me why Warren Jeffs is not a prophet?

[_Nevo]

Deuteronomy 18:21-22

(a few) Unfullfilled prophecies of Joseph Smith.

*Coming of the Lord in 1891 - HC V.2 pg. 182

*David Patton to go on mission in next spring. - D&C 144:1
- Give April 17th 1838. Patton died Oct. 1838

*Congress will be broken up if petition is not heard and protection of the Mormons is not granted. - HC V.6 pg 116
- Petition was never heard, protection was never given, and congress is still fully functional.

*Treasure in Salem, city to be delivered to the Mormons in J.S.'s generation. - D&C 111
-None was found. City was never delivered by God to the Mormons

*Famine, hail, pestilence, earthquakes, will destroy the wicked of this country within J.S.'s generation. - HC V.1 pg 315-316
- Nothing of the sort happened within the generation or since.

*Temple to be built in Zion, Mo.
- Mormons forced to flee Zion.

If the LDS church considers itself a Christian denomination that believes in the Bible, how can it consider Joseph Smith a true prophet?

Hi MMAFighter7,

I'm a practicing (non-excommunicated) Mormon.

First of all, I don't think all of your examples qualify as failed prophecies. Secondly, I don't regard Deuteronomy 18:21-22 as the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes a true prophet. A prophet is more properly a forthteller (i.e., one who "tells forth" the word of God) than a foreteller. Jonah prophesied, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown" (Jonah 3:4). But Nineveh was spared. Was he then a false prophet? According to Deuteronomy 18:22, yes. According to Jonah 3:10, no ("and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not").

But to address your points...

• Joseph Smith didn't prophesy that the Lord would come in 1891. Rather, he stated in 1835 that the coming of the Lord was "nigh" and then added that "even fifty-six years should wind up the scene" (emphasis mine). That was a guess. Joseph didn't know the date of the Second Coming and never claimed to.
  
  
• Is D&C 114:1 a false prophecy? Again, I don't think so. David Patten was called to go on a mission with the rest of the Twelve Apostles the following spring. He was killed in a skirmish with Missouri militiamen before he could fulfill this calling. The revelation doesn't say that Patten would go on a mission the following spring, only that he was called to go. Shouldn't God have known that Patten would be killed? I don't see why he should have. I believe that God only knows the future that is knowable. Free acts of persons cannot be infallibly foreknown (otherwise they are not truly free).
  
  
• Joseph Smith did prophesy in December 1843 that "if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government." B. H. Roberts argued that this prophecy was directed against the Democratic Party, which dominated national politics between 1820 and 1860. It was "broken up as a government" in 1860 and spent the next fifty years in the political wilderness.
  
  
• Regarding D&C 111, it should be noted that the "much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion" is paired with "many people in this city, whom I will gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion" (D&C 111:2), suggesting a correspondence between the two. As Richard Lloyd Anderson notes, "these similarities of wording and style strongly point to an equivalence of idea—the gathering of the converts is at the same time a gathering of their resources. This conclusion is reinforced by the placement of 'in due time' alongside promises of conversions and wealth [verses 2 and 4]. . . . This chronological match also associates the wealth of Salem with conversions from Salem" (see "The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching," BYU Studies 24, no. 4 [1984]: 502). And there were conversions from Salem: the June 2, 1842 edition of the Salem Register noted that "Mormonism is advancing with a perfect rush in this city."
  
  
• Joseph Smith's "prophecy" in his 1833 letter to N. C. Saxton 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" is not entirely inaccurate. The United States was presented with an unparalleled scene of bloodshed in the Civil War. As for "pestilence", it should be noted that Joseph Smith wrote the letter during the second global cholera pandemic. There were further devastating cholera outbreaks in the 1840s, 50s, and 60s. If Joseph Smith was mistaken about the "end" coming in "this generation," he's in good company. Jesus and the Apostle Paul evidently believed the same. The Book of Revelation, as you probably know, opens with God giving John a vision of "things which must shortly come to pass" (1:1) and ends with Christ testifying, "Surely I come quickly" (22:20). Apocalyptic prophets tend to give the same message, no matter when they happen to be prophesying.
  
  
• The temple wasn't built in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, because the non-Mormon inhabitants of Jackson County didn't allow it to be built. Again we see that God's designs are, to some degree, contingent on human agency. This is well illustrated in D&C 103. The Lord states that he wants 500 men to join Zion's Camp (v. 30). "Behold, this is my will," he declares, "but men do not always do my will" (v. 31). He eventually settles for a minimum of 100 men. The Saints were excused from building the temple in Jackson County because they were hindered by their enemies (124:49). The enemies who hindered the God's work will be held accountable for it unless they repent and turn to him (124:50, 52).

[_MMAFighter7]

First off I would like to thank you for your thought out and educated answer, and for understanding that as somebody who is interested and trying to learn it was nothing more then an honest question with no harm intended.

To address your response;

• Joseph Smith didn't prophesy that the Lord would come in 1891. Rather, he stated in 1835 that the coming of the Lord was "nigh" and then added that "even fifty-six years should wind up the scene" (emphasis mine). That was a guess. Joseph didn't know the date of the Second Coming and never claimed to.

I feel that there is no guessing when God is speaking to you. I also know that nobody but God knows when the end will come, so to make even a guess at all is, in my opinion arrogant, and would stand no chance of being right.

Is D&C 114:1 a false prophecy? Again, I don't think so. David Patten was called to go on a mission with the rest of the Twelve Apostles the following spring. He was killed in a skirmish with Missouri militiamen before he could fulfill this calling. The revelation doesn't say that Patten would go on a mission the following spring, only that he was called to go. Shouldn't God have known that Patten would be killed? I don't see why he should have. I believe that God only knows the future that is knowable. Free acts of persons cannot be infallibly foreknown (otherwise they are not truly free).

Free acts of a person can absolutely be known by God. Do not confuse foreknowledge with predestination.

Joseph Smith did prophesy in December 1843 that "if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government." B. H. Roberts argued that this prophecy was directed against the Democratic Party, which dominated national politics between 1820 and 1860. It was "broken up as a government" in 1860 and spent the next fifty years in the political wilderness.

To me, the fact of the matter is that he didn't say the Republician party.

Regarding D&C 111, it should be noted that the "much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion" is paired with "many people in this city, whom I will gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion" (D&C 111:2), suggesting a correspondence between the two. As Richard Lloyd Anderson notes, "these similarities of wording and style strongly point to an equivalence of idea—the gathering of the converts is at the same time a gathering of their resources. This conclusion is reinforced by the placement of 'in due time' alongside promises of conversions and wealth [verses 2 and 4]. . . . This chronological match also associates the wealth of Salem with conversions from Salem" (see "The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching," BYU Studies 24, no. 4 [1984]: 502). And there were conversions from Salem: the June 2, 1842 edition of the Salem Register noted that "Mormonism is advancing with a perfect rush in this city."

Did Joseph Smith not send a party on a treasure hunt there though? I can see the arguement in the "idea" that Anderson presents though.

Joseph Smith's "prophecy" in his 1833 letter to N. C. Saxton 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" is not entirely inaccurate. The United States was presented with an unparalleled scene of bloodshed in the Civil War. As for "pestilence", it should be noted that Joseph Smith wrote the letter during the second global cholera pandemic. There were further devastating cholera outbreaks in the 1840s, 50s, and 60s. If Joseph Smith was mistaken about the "end" coming in "this generation," he's in good company. Jesus and the Apostle Paul evidently believed the same. The Book of Revelation, as you probably know, opens with God giving John a vision of "things which must shortly come to pass" (1:1) and ends with Christ testifying, "Surely I come quickly" (22:20). Apocalyptic prophets tend to give the same message, no matter when they happen to be prophesying.

So you are telling me that he wrote this on the up swing of the things that he was saying would happen?

The temple wasn't built in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, because the non-Mormon inhabitants of Jackson County didn't allow it to be built. Again we see that God's designs are, to some degree, contingent on human agency. This is well illustrated in D&C 103. The Lord states that he wants 500 men to join Zion's Camp (v. 30). "Behold, this is my will," he declares, "but men do not always do my will" (v. 31). He eventually settles for a minimum of 100 men. The Saints were excused from building the temple in Jackson County because they were hindered by their enemies (124:49). The enemies who hindered the God's work will be held accountable for it unless they repent and turn to him (124:50, 52).

If 100 is enough, why didn't God just tell him 100 to begin with?

Again, thank you for speaking so easy.

[_Nevo]

First off I would like to thank you for your thought out and educated answer, and for understanding that as somebody who is interested and trying to learn it was nothing more then an honest question with no harm intended.

You're welcome. I don't have anything against honest questioning. "Prove all things; hold fast the good" right?

I feel that there is no guessing when God is speaking to you. I also know that nobody but God knows when the end will come, so to make even a guess at all is, in my opinion arrogant, and would stand no chance of being right.

I think Joseph Smith was probably following the Savior's injunction to watch for his coming by studying the signs (see Matt. 24:31-32). Based on his reading of the "signs," and on a cryptic answer he received to prayer (D&C 130:14-17), he thought it might happen around 1891—or at least "not any sooner than that time."

Free acts of a person can absolutely be known by God. Do not confuse foreknowledge with predestination.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I should add that most Mormons share your belief in God's perfect foreknowledge. But I think the Old Testament, especially, renders this idea problematic. The Lutheran theologian Terence Fretheim notes, for example, that "there are a variety of [biblical] texts which point to a divine limitation with respect to God's knowledge of the future" (Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective [Overtures to Biblical Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984], 45). These texts include passages such as Ezek. 12:1-3; Jer. 22:4-5; 26:2-3; 36:3, 7; and 51:8. According to Fretheim, "these texts show that Israel's future is genuinely open and not predetermined. The future for Israel does not only not exist, it has not even been finally decided upon. Hence, it is not something that even exists to be known, even if the knower is God" (47).

Did Joseph Smith not send a party on a treasure hunt there though?

Yes. He led the search party actually. The expedition is probably included in the "follies" referred to in D&C 111:1.

If 100 is enough, why didn't God just tell him 100 to begin with?

Because 100 wasn't his will. 500 was. God wanted him to strive for the ideal, while still making allowance for human weakness. In the words of the poet Robert Browning, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?”

[_MMAFighter7]

I think Joseph Smith was probably following the Savior's injunction to watch for his coming by studying the signs (see Matt. 24:31-32). Based on his reading of the "signs," and on a cryptic answer he received to prayer (D&C 130:14-17), he thought it might happen around 1891—or at least "not any sooner than that time."

This is where we begin going in circles I believe, so I will say one more thing and give you the last word on the matter if you'd like it. I would not saying that I am speaking from God if I was simply crossing my fingers and taking a shot in the dark as you are making it sound. I understand your explaination though, and while I disagree I respect it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I should add that most Mormons share your belief in God's perfect foreknowledge. But I think the Old Testament, especially, renders this idea problematic. The Lutheran theologian Terence Fretheim notes, for example, that "there are a variety of [biblical] texts which point to a divine limitation with respect to God's knowledge of the future" (Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective [Overtures to Biblical Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984], 45). These texts include passages such as Ezek. 12:1-3; Jer. 22:4-5; 26:2-3; 36:3, 7; and 51:8. According to Fretheim, "these texts show that Israel's future is genuinely open and not predetermined. The future for Israel does not only not exist, it has not even been finally decided upon. Hence, it is not something that even exists to be known, even if the knower is God" (47).

That seems worthy of a trip to the library.

Yes. He led the search party actually. The expedition is probably included in the "follies" referred to in D&C 111:1.

Ah. A mistake by the missionaries teaching me. that's why I took it upon myself to find a place like this.

Because 100 wasn't his will. 500 was. God wanted him to strive for the ideal, while still making allowance for human weakness. In the words of the poet Robert Browning, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?”

Since I'm not a Mormon, to me this is Joseph Smith covering his ass, and I mean no disrespect to you when I say that. Again though, I do see your point and logic. People do tend to not follow God's will.

[_Scottie]

Nightlion, I'm still waiting for an answer.

How can you discredit Warren Jeffs as a prophet of God?

[_Nightlion]

Nightlion, I'm still waiting for an answer.

How can you discredit Warren Jeffs as a prophet of God?

Sorry, failed to notice.
Um, Warren Jeff? I heard that he squealed like a baby that he was not a prophet during some episode in jail. Anyways. All the fundies are messed up.

I will quote from Joseph Smith a little:
TPSJ pg 256
This principle will justly apply to all of God's dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; BUT IF WE SHOULD SEIZE UPON THOSE SAME BLESSINGS AND ENJOYMENTS WITHOUT LAW, WITHOUT REVELATION, WITHOUT COMMANDMENT, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailing of everlasting regret.