• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jonny vs. Barnabus - One-on-one Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

jonny

Well-Known Member
barnabus said:
If there is no different between the Gospels and the Book of Mormon, why is it necessary?

I believe it is necessary for a few reasons. First, it clarifies doctrine where there are misunderstandings among Christian groups. Also, it demonstrates that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was taught from the beginning - not just from the time of Christ forward. This is not obvious in the Bible. Third, it gives new perspectives on how God interacts with people throughout the world. The Bible gives us great insight on how God interacted with people in one area of the world. The Book of Mormon lets us know that God didn't ignore his children throughout the rest of the world. Finally, the Book of Mormon is something physical that someone can use to gain a testimony of the prophet Joseph Smith and his mission.

I guess that the the Book of Mormon tells its purpose better than I ever could - "Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fahters; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever - And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." (From the Title Page of the Book of Mormon)

The writers in the Book of Mormon knew that they were writing for our day. The Bible contains letters from Paul and other Apostles to the Saints of their day. The Book of Mormon contains letters and writings from prophets around the time of Christ specifically to us today. It was for our time. Nephi told us why he was making the record in 2 Nephi 25:23 - "For we labor diligently to write to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring souls unto Christ. It isn't really to set forth doctrine, although it does that. For me, the Book of Mormon is a much more powerful witness of the divinity of Christ than even the Bible is. From beginning to end, it is completely centered in Christ.

When people write under the direction and inspiration of God, it is scripture and has worth. This is why the Book of Mormon is necessary. It rocks the foundation of Christianity by stating that the Bible does not contain every inspired word ever written. God speaks when he wants and to whom he wants. We cannot limit him.

We can know if something is from God by getting on our knees and asking him. That is the promise of the Book of Mormon:

Moroni 10:3-5 - "Behold, I would exhort you that when you read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your heart. And when ye shall recieve these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

The Book of Mormon is the reason that I know that Jesus Christ is my Savior and Redeemer. The reason I know that is because I got on my knees and asked whether or not it was true. If it was necessary for no other reason than to bring people like me to Christ, it is valuable.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
Revelation 20:12 - "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life(singular): and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books(plural), according to their works."

This verse in and of itself does imply a salvation by works, but in the context.

Revelations 20:13-" And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Point here is whether or not one is in the "book of life" depends on works is debatable. Furthermore, the book of Romans makes a strong arguement as to justification not of works, but of grace and faith.

Romans 3:22-""even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."

Roman 3:24-""being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"(Food for Thought: Is salvation something we earn, or a gift from God?)

Romans 3:26-"for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

Romans 4:5-" "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Romans 11:6-""But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
I have discussed faith and works often and I don't think that we completely disagree, but we probably differ on how we understand the Plan of Salvation. What you need to understand is that it isn't because of our faith that we are necessarily saved. Rather, it is because of the grace of Jesus Christ. Mormon doctrine does not concentrate on avoiding Hell. As long as we have faith in Christ we will be saved. Mormon doctrine focuses on getting as close to God as possible. It isn't through our faith that we come close to God. It is through the actions that this faith promotes and repentance. Grace will save us. Faith will qualify us for this grace. Our actions, or works, will determine where we stand in relation to God.

You can get more understanding of what I'm talking about by reading this thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29723
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
There is no basis here for the idea of on-going preaching of the gospel to the dead, as far as I can tell.

My beliefs are based more on latter day revelation than they are on anything from the Bible. I don't know why nothing more specific was included on this in the Bible. I don't believe that we wait in limbo for the judgment. Read the thread above for more information on this.
 

barnabus

Member
Query: From what I have read, Mormons hold that Joseph Smith, author of the Book of Mormon, is a prophet. As I have said in earlier discussions, Deuteronomy 18:21-22 gives an effective test of whether or not a man is a prophet. If said person's prophecies do not come true, he is false. Now then, let us examine a few statements of Joseph Smith.


D&C 3.16-20 says that the Lamanites (Indians) will be converted. For a century and a half, the LDS missionaries have been trying to convert their "Lamanite brothers" and have not done so. The vast majority of Indians are not Mormons, and most of the few who become LDS turn inactive. This has obviously not been fulfilled, after many years and spending vast amounts of money on programs to convert Indians.


In D&C 124.56-60, Smith prophesied that the Nauvoo House in Nauvoo, IL. would be in his family forever (1841). It did not remain in his family, and is not owned by them today. (To my knowledge at the very least.)


In D&C 87.18, (1832) we read: "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; And the time will come that war will be pour out upon all nations, beginning at this place. 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…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.
"And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshalled and disciplined for war. 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.
"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 end of all nations.
"That the cry of the saints, and 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. Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen."
This prophecy was given on Christmas Day, 1832, in appearance almost 30 years before the Civil War. Although the prophecy looks good on the surface, it must be realized that at the time this was brought forth, South Carolina was already involved in many rebellious acts, and this fact was available in the papers of the time. Congress had passed a tariff in July of 1832 that South Carolina had declared unacceptable.
It was during the Christmas season that the nation's press expected and wrote about the impending outbreak of civil war, beginning with this rebellion in South Carolina. Even the U.S. Army was on alert. With these facts at hand, it didn't take much of a seer to predict the unfolding events. Even a paper published by the Mormons themselves contained such news!
However, the war did not come to pass. The entire prophecy was shelved and never appeared again during Joseph Smith's lifetime. The first two editions of the History of the Church did not include it even though it was in the original manuscript. It reappeared in 1852 when the war again seemed imminent.
Aside from the dating problems, the scope of the prophecy is not in balance. In just one item, the prophecy states that war would begin locally and pour out upon all nations and shall be the direct cause of an international global war. Even the great World War I did not encompass all nations, and it was 50 years after the Civil War and had no possible relationship to it! This is a definite false prophecy that did not come to pass.
Former Mormon Dick Baer has pointed out there are at least 20 elements in this prophecy, and for it to be a true prophecy, all of those elements would have to have come to pass. In human terms, those odds are 1 in 1,048,57, a truly remarkable achievement, had Smith pulled it off. Obviously he did not.

In another example, verses 4 through 6 state that the slaves shall rise up, the remnants left in the land shall rise up against the Gentiles (non-Mormons) and the bloodshed, famines, plagues (caused by this great war) shall bring with God's wrath, "...a full end of all nations." This did not happen. In fact, Smith only got two elements out of 20 right, and those were based on current events and common sense. (Joseph made a similar false prophecy, in The History of the Church, vol. 5)


D&C 57.1-3 (1831) identifies Independence, MO as the center place of Zion, the gathering place of the saintsóit is "the land of promise." This revelation failed because, according to D&C 3.3, any work which is of God could not be frustrated. This "gathering" in Zion was really frustrated, because the Mormons tried to gather there and were physically driven out! To this day, there are few Mormons there; and actually many, many more RLDS members by far! If God was behind this revelation, then the Mormons could not have been driven out by men.


D&C 97.19-20 (1833) prophesies: "Surely, Zion is the city of our God, and surely Zion cannot fall, neither be moved out of her place, for God is there and the hand of the Lord is there; And he hath sworn by the power of his might to be her salvation…" This either makes Smith a false prophet or God too weak to keep his promises. "Zion" fell and the Mormons were driven out of Independence, MO in
1838-39!


With all this in mind, on what grounds can Joseph Smith be dubbed a prophet?
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
With all this in mind, on what grounds can Joseph Smith be dubbed a prophet?

I will respond to all your comments, though probably not all at once because I have a short attention span. I'd like to respond to this comment first.

I don't see those scriptures as a test for whether or not someone is a prophet. The "prophet" remains a "prophet" in that scripture, but the thing which he said is considered "presumptuous." It doesn't say that he is not a prophet. Perhaps you could consider this scriptural proof that a prophet is not necessary infallible when he is not speaking in the name of the Lord.

That being said, I don't like the idea of dismissing the words of a prophet. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and seek to understand their words in the context of what I know to be true. In order for you to understand why I consider Joseph Smith a prophet, you need to put your own thoughts on the subject aside and look at it through my eyes for a moment.

I consider Joseph Smith a prophet because I have received a witness from the Holy Ghost that the path I am on is the correct path. I have felt the power of God manifested through me at times in my life. I have also received a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. In all three of these cases, I cannot deny what I have felt, witnessed, and learned. Denying this would be blasphemous. I sought an answer from God through the Holy Ghost and received one. For me, this is why Joseph Smith can be dubbed a prophet.

I haven't read through all the scriptures that you posted yet, but I will research them and get back to you.
 

barnabus

Member
For the sake of context I will type this passage of scripture as a whole.

But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in my name of other gods, must be put to death.You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. Deuteronomy 18:20-22

Joseph Smith meets both these criteria for a false prophet.

For proclaiming other gods, we have the written word of Smith. Whether or not these passages are official doctrine of the church is void, in that Joseph Smith did teach such things in the name of God, and that they declare the existence of other gods.
"Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible . . . Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many . . . but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all" (History of the Church, Vol. 6, page 474).
"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5)
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man....it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3).

As I explained earlier, Joseph Smith met the second criteria in the passage in that his prophecies did not come true.( I have more such examples if necessary.)

I would also like to point out the fundamental problem of how the Book of Mormon can be true when it defies every historic and anthropological kind of evidence. Not only does scientific evidence refute any kind of civilization as that described in the Book of Mormon , it give concrete evidence of a totally different civilization in its place.

With all this against Joseph Smiths office of prophet, one must ask how holy was this "Holy Spirit" which you claim has given you revelation? I do recall some passages of scripture teaching to reject other gospels, even if taught by "an angel of light." If malignant entities truly wished to pervert the Gospel, we can infer they would indeed present themselves holy and enlightened, in the figurative sense. Honestly, I do not see how such a
testimony can override every bit of rationality, evidence, or Scriptural doctrine that is against the authenticity of Smith's message. It is evidence of what Paul once wrote of," For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."(2 Timothy 4:3-4)
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
I disagree with your interpretation of Deut 18:22. Based on your interpretation, if a prophet makes one mistake, he is no longer a prophet. Unfortunately, your interpretation means that prophets in the Bible are disqualified from being prophets.

Take Jonah for example. In Jonah 3:4, Jonah prophesied that Ninevah would be destroyed in 40 days. There was no clause given in the prophesy. Luckily, the people repented and the God changed his mind. Jonah was pissed off, or as the bible says, he was "displeased...exceedingly and he was very angry." He pouted for a while and then the Lord taught Jonah a wonder lesson in repentance. Jonah, the prophet, was being taught by God. If you read the history of Joseph Smith's life, you will begin to see the life of a imperfect man who called by God to do a great work. He struggled with weaknesses and imperfections, but that did not undermine his calling. Reading through the Doctrine and Covenants reveals that Joseph Smith was being taught, similar to the way that Jonah was being taught, as he became the leader the Lord desired him to be.

There are other examples of unfulfilled prophesies in the Bible, but my purpose isn't to destroy your testimony of the Bible. It is only to point out that your interpretation of this particular scripture is not supported by the Bible. I think this is because you presume to understand what a prophet is without completely understanding what it is.

The word "prophet" comes from the Greek word prophetes, which means "inspired teacher." The LDS Bible Dictionary defines a prophet as follows:

The work of a Hebrew prophet was to act as God's messenger and to make known God's will. The message was usually prefaced with the words, "Thus saith Jehovah." He taught men about God's character, showing the full meaning of his dealings with Israel in the past. It was therefore part of the prophetic office to preserve and edit the records of the nation's history...

It was the prophet's duty to denounce sin and foretell its punishment, and to redress, as far as he could, both public and private wrongs. He was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the Divine requirement. In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are very important prophesies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule a prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost.
Now, a prophet should have the spirit of prophesy. The question is, what does that mean? Is prophesy fortune telling? Not according to the scriptures. Wilford Woodruff, the 4th President of the LDS church, said, "He is a prophet, I am a prophet, you are, and anybody is a prophet who has the testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy." This is confirmed in Revelation 19:10, "...for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy" and in Numbers 11:29 when Moses stated that the God, "would...that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them."

So, a prophet, by definition, is a teacher who is inspired through the Holy Ghost.

In the LDS church, a prophet has another role which deals with priesthood keys and leadership. These are completely off topic so we can deal with that later on if you’d like.

Now, in the LDS church, we don’t just sustain the First Presidency and Apostles as Prophets. We also sustain them as Seers and Revelators.

You have argued that Joseph Smith is not a prophet, but your evidence doesn't match up. You are trying to prove that Joseph Smith is not a Seer or a Revelator. I'll takle the definition of those positions, along with the scriptures you've given, in my next post.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
Alright, let me get some of these scriptures you've listed out of the way.

[FONT=&quot]D&C 3.16-20 says that the Lamanites (Indians) will be converted. For a century and a half, the LDS missionaries have been trying to convert their "Lamanite brothers" and have not done so. The vast majority of Indians are not Mormons, and most of the few who become LDS turn inactive. This has obviously not been fulfilled, after many years and spending vast amounts of money on programs to convert Indians.[/FONT]
For the sake of those following along, here is the scripture that you are interpreting:

16 Nevertheless, my work shall go forth, for inasmuch as the knowledge of a Savior has come unto the world, through the testimony of the Jews, even so shall the knowledge of a Savior come unto my people

17 And to the Nephites, and the Jacobites, and the Josephites, and the Zoramites, through the testimony of their fathers

18 And this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, whom the Lord has suffered to destroy their brethren the Nephites, because of their iniquities and their abominations.
These scriptures, in context, are discussing a purpose of the Book of Mormon. The Lord is also chastizing the prophet, which is related to what I mentioned above. The purpose given is that the "Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they might believe the gospel and rely on the merits of Jesus Christ."

Now, what is the prophesy? The Lord is proclaiming that, regardless of whether or not Joseph Smith is obedient, that his "work shall go forth...unto my people that the promises of the Lord might be fulfilled which he made to his people." The prophesy came true. The gospel was restored, the Book of Mormon was translated, and Joseph Smith did not stand in the way of the Lord's work.

Now, you've added in your own interpretation of a "prophesy" concerning the Lamanites. Fisrt, you first presume to know who the Lamanites are. I don't even know who they are. I don't believe they are Indians, although there may be Lamanite blood mixed in with some of the Indians. There are Mormons who believe that every Indian is a Mormon, but I'm not one of them. It doesn't make sense to me and it isn't supported scripturally.

Second, those scriptures don't say a word about the conversion of the Lamanites. They say that the "testimony shall come to the knowledge" of various groups from the Book of Mormon that will be given the opportunity to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Finally, even if conclusion supported the premises you've presented, there is no time line in that scripture. You've obviously established a deadline in order to determine that this promise in not fulfilled, but the deadline was not established by the Lord.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
[FONT=&quot]In D&C 124.56-60, Smith prophesied that the Nauvoo House in Nauvoo, IL. would be in his family forever (1841). It did not remain in his family, and is not owned by them today. (To my knowledge at the very least.)[/FONT]
Are you serious? A prophesy about a hotel? Is this really the best you could find. :D Let me quote these scriptures also:

56 And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from generation to generation.

57 For this anointing have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall also be put upon the head of his posterity after him.

58 And as I said unto Abraham concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto my servant Joseph: In thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed.
Alright, so what is the Nauvoo House? The Nauvoo House was a hotel. The pupose of the house was to house travelers who were arriving in the city - most likely coming to attend the temple. These people would be "blessed" by Joseph Smith's family because the family would take care of the travelers staying in the boarding house. The house wasn't finished when Joseph Smith was killed.

For as long as the unfinished house stood, it remained in the control of the Smith family. What was finished of the building was torn down by Emma's second husband. Since the temple was burned down when the Saints abandoned Nauvoo, there was no purpose for the house I assume. Emma Smith and her husband lived in the home that they built there until he died and then the home was purchased by the Reorganized LDS church. This church was a breakoff that believed that the prophet of the church should be Joseph Smith's son. Techincally, since the Smith family controlled the RLDS church, you could say that the house remained in their ownership.

As was demonstrated above with Jonah, decisions we make can change the outcome of what the Lord tells his prophets. Joseph Smith's family did not remain members of the church after his death; therefore, they did not qualify for the blessings and mission that the Lord gave them. Had the family remained in the church, the outcome may have been different. With Jonah and the people in Ninevah, they repented and the Lord didn't destroy them. In the case of Joseph Smith's family, they apostasized and the Lord withdrew the blessings that he had promised them.
 

barnabus

Member
In regards to your earlier statements concerning this spiritual revelation concerning the Book of Mormon, as well as the supposed righteousness of Joseph Smith.

"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him...For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." 2 Corinthians 11:4, 13-15
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
In regards to your earlier statements concerning this spiritual revelation concerning the Book of Mormon, as well as the supposed righteousness of Joseph Smith.

Let me finish responding to everything before we move on. Otherwise this discussion will be difficult to follow.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
Now for the Civil War prophesy that Joseph Smith received in 1832. I'm not going to quote the entire thing. If people want to read it they can here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/mor/dc/dc87.htm

Your argument makes assumptions that Joseph Smith's prophesy was just a guess based off current events. Perhaps it was stimulated by current events. This isn't just a prophesy about what was going on in 1832. This was a prophesy about the wars preceeding the Second Coming.

In his book, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, Mormon scholar Bushman describes this history of this prophesy as follows:

On Christmas Day, when the Kirtland brethern were discussing the possible repercussions of [the confrontation with South Carolina], South Carolina was mentioned in a revelation. The naming of a state was a departure for Joseph; political institutions had rarely been named in the revelations... The United States figured only as one of the unnamed nations that were to suffer in the last days. Mormons, like other millenarians, tended to dismiss human political institutions as ephemera doomed to disappear. But the Christmas Day revelation linked "the appearances of troubles among the nations" to prophesies of the last days. The revelation foresaw war in South Carolina that would spread through the world. First the North and South would fight, and later Great Britain as a sourthern ally. "After many days," the slaves would rise up against their masters, and eventually, the Indians, "the remnants who are left of the land," would join in. Reference to the "remnants" would have reminded the Saints of the Book of Mormon prophesies about the remnants of Jacob in America, the Lamanites, vexing the Gentiles if they refused to join Israel.

The Christmas Day revelation was the first Mormon revelation to correlate political events with the millenarian calender, the central project of most millenarian thinkers, who had linked the career of Napolean, for example, to prophesies in the Bible. Joseph's revelation foresaw a series of wars unfolding out of one another - North vs. South, Great Britain and the Nations, slaves rising up, then Indians "will marshall themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry" - until "the consumption decreed, hath made a full end of all nations." The "rebellion" of South Carolina would "terminate in the death and misery of many souls."

Little was made of the Civl War revelation in Joseph's time. He did not publish it during his lifetime, and not until 1876 did it stay in the Doctrine and Covenants for good. The revelation responded to events of the hour, in the spirit of cholera reports, and then was put aside. Interest revived in the 1850s when the conflict between North and South flared up again. In 1861, in the middle of the sucession crisis, a Philadephia newspaper reprinted the revelation as a curiosity, ending the article with the query, "Have we not a prophet among us?"

I only recount the information because it is a little less biased in its description than your description.

I did a quick search on the name "Dick Baer" to see what I could find. This link came up in Google: http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/Tvedtnes.htm. Since this response is must more complete than any response I could ever give, I'll just refer you to it.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
D&C 57.1-3 (1831) identifies Independence, MO as the center place of Zion, the gathering place of the saintsóit is "the land of promise." This revelation failed because, according to D&C 3.3, any work which is of God could not be frustrated. This "gathering" in Zion was really frustrated, because the Mormons tried to gather there and were physically driven out! To this day, there are few Mormons there; and actually many, many more RLDS members by far! If God was behind this revelation, then the Mormons could not have been driven out by men.
Many RLDS would probably be offended that you don't consider them to be included in the bunch, but that's off the subject. :D

Going through LDS history here would take forever to give the question justice, so I'll just focus on the scripture and your analysis.

D&C 3:3 states, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men. This chapter goes back to Joseph Smith the chastizement he was receiving from the Lord - the same one that contains your first "failed prophesy." Because of Joseph Smith's disobedience, the Lord had taken away Joseph's power to translate the Book of Mormon. Here, the Lord was simply humbling Joseph Smith. We read in verse 4 that "a many may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him." Joseph Smith was being punished, but was promised that his punishment wouldn't stop the work from going forth.

In any case, the "work of God" being described in Chapter 3 is the Book of Mormon. It is not referring to the scriptures that you referenced in D&C 57. Still, that does not explain why the Saints were forced out of Missouri. If it was God's will that Missouri was the center of Zion, you would think that God would have protected the Saints from the mobs.

The persecution in Missouri troubled Joseph Smith considerably. In an letter dated August 18, 1833, Joseph Smith wrote that the Saints must "wait patiently until the Lord come and resto[res] unto us all things." My belief is that we are still waiting patiently for the temple to be build in Missouri. The growth of the church demonstrates that the work of God was not frustrated. Mormons still believe that when Christ reigns during the second coming that Zion will be centered in Missouri. We still believe that eventually the center of the church will be moved to Missouri. The saints continued to gather to "Zion" and cities such as Far West, Nauvoo, and Salt Lake were built according to Joseph Smith's plans for Zion.

Eventually the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith D&C 101, where he was told that the afflictions were because of the wickedness of the members of the church. In this revelation, the members are told that "Zion shall not be moved out of her place, notwithstanding her children are scattered."
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
This is the last one I'm responding to tonight. I'll get to your next two posts later (hopefully tomorrow) and then wait for your response.

I'd like to note that, while I'm responding to these scriptures in the context of them being "prophesies," I don't think that most of them are. This is a great example of one where a "promise" was twisted into a "prophesy." You've got to consider that members of the LDS church are not complete idiots and we wouldn't cannonize failed prophesies that disprove our church. Your source of information is obviously twisting our beliefs to suit his or her own purposes.

D&C 97.19-20 (1833) prophesies: "Surely, Zion is the city of our God, and surely Zion cannot fall, neither be moved out of her place, for God is there and the hand of the Lord is there; And he hath sworn by the power of his might to be her salvation…" This either makes Smith a false prophet or God too weak to keep his promises. "Zion" fell and the Mormons were driven out of Independence, MO in 1838-39!
Here are the complete scriptures:

19 And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say: Surely Zion is the city of our God, and surely Zion cannot fall, neither be moved out of her place, for God is there, and the hand of the Lord is there;

20 And he hath sworn by the power of his might to be her salvation and her high tower.
Unfortunately, you, hopefully inadvertantly, left out the proceeding verse which makes it crystal clear that these scriptures are a promise and not a prophesy:

18. And, now, behold, if Zion do these things she shall prosper, and spread herself and become very glorious, very great, and very terrible.
Whare are "these things?" They were told to build a temple and not let any unclean thing enter it. The temple was never built, but I believe that in many ways the promise was fulfilled. Zion has prospered; she has spread herself; she has become great and powerful; nations do honor her; and I don't see it falling any time soon. Like I said, this isn't over. Members of the church still believe that Zion will be centered in Missouri and that the temple will be built.

I think it might be helpful for you to understand what is meant when the LDS discuss Zion. This is from ldsfaq.byu.edu:

Latter-day Saints use the name Zion to signify a group of God's followers, a place where such a group lives, or the state of mind and heart of such a group. Latter-day scriptures define Zion as the "pure in heart" (D&C 97:21). "Pure in heart" may be explained in terms of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that to be saved a person must believe in him, repent of sins, and be born of water and of the Spirit (John 3:5, 16). Scripture describes the rebirth to which Jesus refers as a "mighty change in your hearts" or being "born of God" (Alma 5:13, 14). A person who is pure in heart is one who has died to evil and awakened to good. The people of Zion live together in love as equals; they have "all things common" (4 Nephi 1:3); they labor together, each contributing to the work of salvation according to their individual talents. People of Zion enjoy a fulness of life, or happiness, in the highest degree possible in this world and, if they remain faithful, in the world to come. The prophets always labor to prepare people to become a people of Zion. In the Restoration, Joseph Smith taught his people that they can, and must, become people of Zion. That vision inspires the labors and programs of the Church to this day.
http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=199
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
[FONT=&quot]As I explained earlier, Joseph Smith met the second criteria in the passage in that his prophecies did not come true.( I have more such examples if necessary.)[/FONT]

Bring them on (when I'm done with what you've already presented, of course). So far, you haven't posted anything that a reasonable person would consider a false prophesy and you're far from having proven your point.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
I'll respond to the "second criteria" that you have from the scripture in Deut regarding proclaiming other gods.

[FONT=&quot]For proclaiming other gods, we have the written word of Smith. Whether or not these passages are official doctrine of the church is void, in that Joseph Smith did teach such things in the name of God, and that they declare the existence of other gods.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible . . . Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many . . . but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all" (History of the Church, Vol. 6, page 474). [/FONT]
Did you really just use a quote of Joseph Smith quoting Paul to prove your point? So, by your definition, I guess that Paul is also false prophet. I guess I find this incredibly ironic because Southern Baptists usually hold Paul at a higher level than even Christ himself. I never thought I'd see the day when a Southern Baptist was so desperate to prove a Mormon was wrong that he would actually discredit the man whose doctrines are the foundation of their faith. James I could see you discrediting, but I always thought that Paul was off limits. :D Again, isn't it obvious to you that your interpretation of this scripture is not supported by the Bible?

Did you read what Joseph Smith was saying here? He is stating that the Bible supports the doctrine that there is more than one god, but that there is only one god who is important to us. I don't see what the problem is with this. If he was saying that we are to worship these other gods you would have a point. He didn't say that.

Even though I've shown that your interpretation cannot be valid, I will still respond to the rest of the quotes you offered.

[FONT=&quot]"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5)[/FONT]
This is a quote from the King Follet Discourse, one of my favorite sermons by Joseph Smith. It was given at the funeral of a young man named King Follet. Here is the complete paragraph:

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.​


Joseph Smith was trying to explain our relationship to God and teach why we worship him as our Father and why we don't worship any other God. Again, Joseph Smith is not promoting the worship of idols.

[FONT=&quot]"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man....it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3).[/FONT]

Another quote from the King Follet Discourse. I don't see how it is related to the point you are trying to make. Is it just that you disagree with the belief? So what? That's why you're not LDS.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
[FONT=&quot]I would also like to point out the fundamental problem of how the Book of Mormon can be true when it defies every historic and anthropological kind of evidence. Not only does scientific evidence refute any kind of civilization as that described in the Book of Mormon , it give concrete evidence of a totally different civilization in its place. [/FONT]

In order to respond to this you're going to need to provide all this concrete evidence. Currently, you've made a claim with no proof.

My only response is, "what is the basis of your belief in the Bible?" Go browse through the forums here and you'll quickly realize that the same claims are made against the Bible. If you're intellectually honest you'll admit that your belief in the Bible requires faith. So does belief in the Book of Mormon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top