Indoctrination-is it really so deep?

[_jfro18]

The prophecy was given by Joseph Smith. That we know. The question in my mind is how would we expect this prophecy to sound/look? I believe that God, generally speaking, works...or has set up the workings of this planet...to operate through naturalistic means. Whether it be pestilence, hail, famine, disease, earthquakes, or what have you, God is not in view as THE cause of these unfortunate events/occurrences.

The Civil War was an outcome of the doings of man. God did not cause the Civil War. Scriptural language which describes 'God's judgments' typically uses words that describe things using nature as a backdrop. Would we expect a prophecy to use words like 'bombs bursting in air' or 'artillery shells dropping all round' or 'scabies infected the troops', etc.? I think not. So to get hung up on the fact that literal hail didn't fall from the sky...although it may have...or that there wasn't wide spread famine, although many troops approached starvation, etc., is unreasonable in my opinion.

Looking from a global perspective and looking at outcomes and results and what we see around us today with the implementation of the Kingdom of God on the earth, I see this prophecy as being an acceptable 'vision' as to what was to come in Joseph's time and in the future from Joseph's eyes with the views that he was privy to through his revelations/prophecies.

Regards,
MG

That you're pointing to Biblical prophesy to show Joseph Smith received prophesy that way only further proves the critic's point that Joseph was effectively creating Biblical fan fiction.

Look at how D&C 132 was written - in God's voice yet Joseph riffed it off the top of his head even as Hyrum requested Joseph use the seer stone to receive it. I wrote about that a few weeks ago: https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/blog-revelation-and-dc132

So of course Joseph is going to use naturalistic threats here in the voice of Biblical revelation, but that's why you can't then turn around and say that equals the Civil War.

Also, God tells Joseph through revelation that he KNEW Joseph was going to lose those first 116 pages and had another set prepared, yet we're supposed to think God is incapable of giving more specific events in a revelation? Especially one that would again prove that Joseph Smith is a prophet by saying war was going to break out across the country that would lead to bloodshed?

You could take almost any person that was making predictions at any time and make it work if you're willing to change what their words meant - it's trying to find parallels when the reality is that it just doesn't work by itself.

And last, as has pointed out over and over here... even if we grant you that hail, earthquakes, pestilence, and famine meant the Civil War - why did the church move to Utah and abandon Missouri if that's where everyone was going to gather after the event?

There's no way to make this work, but it fits perfectly in Joseph's patterns of revelation and creating them in the spirit of Biblical revelations.

[_grindael]

The Ten Tribes would return to the New Jerusalem which the descendants of the Lamanites would build.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN and they know it. So they have given up on it and made up a whole ridiculous new interpretation.

That's what they do. This has been a classic example of how their indoctrination works. Thanks for showing us.

[_mentalgymnast]

The prophecy is false regardless.

But Joseph didn't prophecy that the lost ten tribes were going to return to Zion in Missouri during his life time. At least I'm not aware of that prophecy. Someone might want to point it out and I'll stand corrected.

The prophecy in its entirety. It was supposed to commence within a few years and never happened.

As I read and reread the prophecy I am not convinced that the return of the ten tribes during the Zion movement in Missouri is required by the text. Especially when viewed with the Civil War as the natural backdrop.

I realize others will disagree, that's fine.

It does make a difference as to how you view this 'prophecy' though, doesn't it?

Joseph=true prophet
Joseph=false prophet

Regards,
MG

[_jfro18]

What you feel comfortable with isn't what Smith said. So what you are saying is irrelevant to Smith's prophecy. That's your fake leaders later interpretation because Smith's prophecy FAILED.

And this is really what it all boils down to, right?

Just look at this weekend - Nelson got up and told the world that your families would be separated unless you brought everyone back into 100% obedience, but believing members are out there claiming that's not what he said.

That applies to what the church teaches about polygamy in the afterlife, LGBTs, Book of Abraham, etc -- no one is comfortable with what the church leaders have said or done so they either deny it outright or change the meaning of actual words in order to make it somehow fit for them.

That combo of fear and being uncomfortable with what things actually are is one hell of a drug.

[_jfro18]

As I read and reread the prophecy I am not convinced that the return of the ten tribes during the Zion movement in Missouri is required by the text. Especially when viewed with the Civil War as the natural backdrop.

I realize others will disagree, that's fine.

It does make a difference as to how you view this 'prophecy' though, doesn't it?

Joseph=true prophet
Joseph=false prophet

Regards,
MG

Of course it makes a difference in how people 'view' words -- we see that every day in politics.

But at the same time it doesn't mean that if you deny words at face value that it's right. It just means you're in denial.

It's like the Book of Abraham essay - do you mean translation or translation.

If you need to change the meaning of words in order to make it work, then you clearly do not believe in what you are defending at face value

But we see it every day with apologists... "carefully worded denials" is another great one.

In the words of Brother Jake - "So you see, no problem."

[_mentalgymnast]

So of course Joseph is going to use naturalistic threats here in the voice of Biblical revelation, but that's why you can't then turn around and say that equals the Civil War.

With hindsight? Sure I can. And it makes sense.

Especially as one looks at the bigger picture of what's occurring today with missionary work and Zion spreading throughout the world.

And again, I know there's going to be disagreement on this. Even name calling from some. That's OK. We're all entitled to our own point of view. Mine is from a faithful perspective.

This particular prophesy is a "big deal"(taking words from Barr's testimony in sub-committee). I get that.

So there you go.

Regards,
MG

[_grindael]

It is ludicrous to use the interpretation of FAIRMORMON because they are claiming that the Civil War was to sweep the wicked off the land to PREPARE for the return of the lost tribes.

And yet, that didn't work. The people came back bigger and better and stronger than ever. They will never get them out of there now. They will never build the great CITY that Smith prophesied.

He also prophesied that the "redemption of zion" would take place on September 11, 1836. That would give time for the city to be built and the tribes to return in his lifetime. But the Missourians were having none of it.

His God was a figment of his imagination, Joseph was no Moses, and he failed to redeem Zion. His God was laughing at him. Left him hanging and writhing in pain from cholera.

Everything Joseph wrote about Zion was a lie. These ad hoc silly explanations of FAIRMORMON only make things worse. Mental sees it, so now he is pushing the reinterpretation that the Tribes are all around us and will not gather to Zion which was redefined as the whole continent.

Mormonism is a dismal failure in prophecy. It's a great social club though. But its religious history is indefensible.

[_Res Ipsa]

MG, you keep focusing on one small portion of the prophecy. The prophecy predicts a whole sequence of events that lead up to a gathering, including the ten tribes, which is already underway. It didn’t happen. All you’ve done is try and twist pieces of the prophecy to try and make them fit later events. But the prophecy as a whole is false.

[_Res Ipsa]

So of course Joseph is going to use naturalistic threats here in the voice of Biblical revelation, but that's why you can't then turn around and say that equals the Civil War.

With hindsight? Sure I can. And it makes sense.

Especially as one looks at the bigger picture of what's occurring today with missionary work and Zion spreading throughout the world.

And again, I know there's going to be disagreement on this. Even name calling from some. That's OK. We're all entitled to our own point of view. Mine is from a faithful perspective.

This particular prophesy is a "big deal"(taking words from Barr's testimony in sub-committee). I get that.

So there you go.

Regards,
MG

What in this prophecy says anything about missionary work?

[_grindael]

Even name calling from some

You should know:

You have a tendency, at times, to use sleight of hand in order to then promote your interpretative and conclusive results.

sleight of hand

skillful deception.
"this is financial sleight of hand of the worst sort"
synonyms: deception, deceit, dissimulation, double-dealing, chicanery, trickery, sharp practice, legerdemain

You have a penchant for calling me names. And I then reply in kind. No problem, but don't pontificate, Mental, for you, it's dishonest.