Challenge For Sledge

[dastardly stem]

On the other thread, Sledge was pretty evasive and seemed to, in the sum, define prophecy as something a prophet says and not much more. At one point he said a prophecy is just a prediction, but then seemed to take issue when I pointed out that's what he said. He also said prophecy is a mandate. He also pointed out that prophecy is really just "the right thing to do". Also when he said: "heeding a prophets words to be healthy, to "take vitamins" is a type of prophetic mandate, is it not?" He was left equivocating on the concept of prophecy, muddying up the waters enough to suggest, at least as I saw it, that prophecy is simply something a prophet says that he kinda liked.

Although included in that "prophecy" of eating vitamins was Nelson's claim that in the next year or two there will be "exciting" events which will further indicate the restoration is continuing. That was 3 years ago. What exciting things have been revealed regarding the restoration in that time? Of course Sledge has nothing on that, since it appears, everything the prophet prophesies is meek is not magic nor specific in any sense.

I mean I hate to sound like I'm picking on the guy, because you know, when it comes to outlandish claims it's kind of no big deal. They're a dime a dozen and easily dismissed as loony people saying loony things. But let's just frame his position a little more.

To Sledge, apparently, God actually communicates with humans. If so, one would think that would be pretty important for people to know. When asked for examples of God communicating, he finds a couple of, as he puts it, admittedly meek sentences, which he misquoted, and when pressed to a very light degree he clammed up a bit and in place of stepping up with a good reason for others to think God said something, he basically back-stepped suggesting God's messages are kinda lame and useless in the long run. They don't seem to matter at all. He hedged his bets at every point after that, it seemed. He demurred saying something about how in the Bible prophecies were rare, so we can't really expect to see any these days. Well, he says, "if you are looking for a magic trick then you might not understand the nature of prophecy", as if anyone was asking for magic or anything like it. And of course, as he put it, prophecy is "just prediction". But as it were there were no predictions outlined by him and nothing to indicate the prophet understood his words were an attempt to predict anything--he indicated a couple of times how it's possible or likely that Nelson didn't even know what he was saying.

I don't think he's willing to discuss anything in a respectful way. I hope he surprises me, though.

[drumdude]

As with all Mormon apologetics, you start with the assumption that whatever church leaders say is true, and change the definition of words to make what they say true.

[dastardly stem]

I would like to keep this thread professional and free from personal attacks.

Sledge, please list some accurate prophecies made in the last 200 years by the Prophet and let’s discuss.

I don't do personal attacks; I never have on this board.

The church essay entitled Prophecies of Joseph Smith sheds some light on this topic. It first lists the Civil War prophecy

On December 25, 1832, Joseph Smith received a revelation prophesying that a war between the northern and southern U.S. states would begin in South Carolina and that wars and uprisings throughout the earth would finally result in the “end of all Nations” at the time of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. At the time the revelation was received, South Carolina and the federal government of the United States were involved in a dispute, but it was peacefully resolved the next March. Years later, Joseph reiterated his prophecy that war would break out in South Carolina over slavery debates, as it did nearly 20 years after Joseph Smith’s death.

And next, this

Joseph Smith also prophesied frequently concerning the future destiny of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its role in the last days. Perhaps the most beloved of these prophecies was contained in an 1842 letter addressed to Chicago newspaper editor John Wentworth. “No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing,” Joseph affirmed, despite the adversity the young Church had already faced. “Persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”

After Joseph Smith, it's hard to find anything except a few little things here and there, like the Proclamations and the home-centered church. That's okay though, hundreds of years elapsed between prophecies in the Bible.

Those are probably good places to start. But I predict that I will be the only one defending these prophecies.

So are these yet to be fulfilled prophecies since nations still exist and the Great Jehovah hasn't said anything? When shall we see them fulfilled?

[Equality]

A few things to note:

1. When asked for examples of prophecies over the last 200 years, Sledge has to go all the way back to 1832 for an example. That's telling.
2. The prophecy he chose, as some have already pointed out, seems like anything anyone who read a newspaper in December 1832 could have predicted.
3. Sledge cited summaries of the prophecy rather than the actual language found in the canonized scriptures.

The reason to not cite the actual scripture is that, in context, it is clear that Smith's prophecies contained more misses than hits:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full fend of all nations;

7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

Doctrine & Covenants section 87

Let's go verse by verse.

Verse 1: war will begin "shortly" at South Carolina. Is 30 years "shortly"? Arguable. Did a war start at South Carolina? Yes. We'll give this a "hit."
Verse 2: war will be poured out on "all nations, beginning at this place (i.e. South Carolina). Didn't happen. Miss (And no, one cannot reasonably argue that this is referring to WWI and WWII--those wars, despite their names, did not involve "all nations"; nor did they begin at South Carolina. The war that began at South Carolina was the U.S. Civil War, which ended more than a half century before WWI and 75 years before WWII)
Verse 3: The South did seek aid from Great Britain, but did not receive any material support; nor did Great Britain call on other nations to aid the South. Miss.
Verse 4: Slaves rise up against masters and marshaled for war. Didn't really happen. Freedmen in the North and some enslaved people who had escaped the South were conscripted into the Union Army and made valuable contributions to the war effort. But there weren't major uprisings of enslaved people in the South as predicted in this verse. Another Miss.
Verse 5: the remnants of the land will vex the Gentiles. Whatever the heck this is supposed to mean, can anyone argue that it happened? Miss.
Verse 6: Lots of fire-and-brimstone stuff, including "the end of all nations." Hasn't happened. Not even close. Almost 200 years after the prophecy was uttered and bupkes. Big swing and a miss for Smith.
Verse 7: saints "avenged" of their enemies. Um, nope. The saints are still waiting for their "enemies" to be destroyed by their vengeful Mormon god. While this is an example of Smith's bloodlust, it hasn't happened--yet. Another miss.

Sledge, are you among those still hopeful that this particular prophecy will come to pass? Or do you denounce Smith's desire to have his god smite the "Gentiles" with famine, plague, earthquake, and sword?

I remember wondering why Gordon B. Hinckley, with his direct pipeline to God, did not warn the worldwide audience of the earthquake and tsunami that was going to kill over 230,000 people just hours after he appeared on Larry King on December 26, 2004. I always just assumed it was because Hinckley didn't really talk to God (despite all those testimonies I would hear on the first Sunday of the month when people would tell me they knew with every fiber of their being that every Thursday in the Salt Lake Temple Jesus would show up and chat with the FP and the Q12). But now that I re-read this "prophecy" maybe it's because God and his "Prophet" really just wanted all those people to suffer horrifying deaths. What do you think?

[The Stig]

Home based church is a prophecy? Talk about bending the facts to fit the narrative.

[jpatterson]

As with all Mormon apologetics, you start with the assumption that whatever church leaders say is true, and change the definition of words to make what they say true.

It's not a feature of Mormon apologetics, it's a feature of apologetics itself.

Mormons (including ex-Mormons) aren't that unique. Or special.

[Dr Exiled]

Home based church is a prophecy? Talk about bending the facts to fit the narrative.

Yes, that one is a real beaut. Russell M. Nelson whiffed big-time on the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic and so they had to say something.

They should just stick to finances from now on. They have been highly successful and perhaps should start an investment house. I'm sure it could rival anything on Wall Street in a few years. I can see the commercial now ...... A person is at a dinner party telling her friends about her new LDS investment advisor from "LDS Hive Investment Professionals" and the whole room stops to listen a la the old EF Hutton commercials .....

[The Stig]

Home based church is a prophecy? Talk about bending the facts to fit the narrative.

Yes, that one is a real beaut. Russell M. Nelson whiffed big-time on the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic and so they had to say something.

They should just stick to finances from now on. They have been highly successful and perhaps should start an investment house. I'm sure it could rival anything on Wall Street in a few years. I can see the commercial now ...... A person is at a dinner party telling her friends about her new LDS investment advisor from "LDS Hive Investment Professionals" and the whole room stops to listen a la the old EF Hutton commercials .....

LDS Hive Investment Professionals - Investment tips straight from God's mouth, to our ears, to your portfolio.

[Dr Moore]

Even if Joseph Smith did prophetically hear the voice of God predicting Civil War, so what? What value came of it?

I would be inclined to give full marks if Joseph had also heard the voice of God predicting Civil war AND mandating full temple equality to blacks as a result. A real missed opportunity. Maybe Joseph just hung up on the revelatory phone call too quick to get the punch line.

[Physics Guy]

I sort of have to back up the Mormons on this one a bit. I think it's legitimate to distinguish prophethood from predicting the future. Predicting the future is supposed to be part of a prophet's skill set, to the point where predicting something that does not come to pass is failing a Biblical test of genuine prophet status. You'd get stoned or something.

I don't think that prophets in the Biblical sense are supposed to be predictors of the future primarily, though. The idea is that prophets speak for God, who may in fact know the future, and who at any rate is not going to venture predictions unless they are certain, since God must be either omniscient or else keen not to lose face. So prophecies have to be true, or they are no true prophecies, but they do not necessarily have to concern the future at the time they are delivered. We just happen to care more about the prophecies that do concern their future, because they might let us win the lottery now.

I've always understood that when Ezekiel was told to "prophesy to the wind", it meant to preach to the wind, not to try to tell the wind where it was going to blow next. So just because someone's a prophet doesn't mean they have to do a lot of predicting the future. At least, that's one traditional understanding of what prophethood means and does not mean. We can complain that maybe a line of modern prophets ought to have let at least a couple of predictions drop over all these years, but technically I don't think prophets in the Biblical sense have to predict. They just can't predict wrong, if they do.