FAQs About Mormonism - Discussion

[Boxy]

On the nature of prophets:

Deuteronomy 18:22 "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Now, to give it in context:

Deuteronomy 18:15-22 15 "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

In this instance, we should note, a prophet is not only those who "tell the future", per se, but one who specifically speak unto them all that I shall command him. Thus, a prophet isn't simply a fortune-teller or one who dispenses curses, but one who dispenses judgment, counsel, authority, etc. etc. And, I suppose, this is the reason why we sustain the highest church leadership as "prophets, seers, and revelators".

Now, examining the last verse in particular, given that we are exposed to the entirety of the context:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD,
If a man purports to be a prophet of God..

...if the thing follow not, nor come to pass,
This is the crux of our argument. Now, supposing that such a structure of "neither... nor" indicates that the two conditions are not the same, we must analyze their shades of meaning, courtesy of Dictionary.com.

Quote:

come to pass:
To occur.

follow:
1. To come or go after; proceed behind: Follow the usher to your seat.
2.
a) To go after in or as if in pursuit: ?The wrong she had done followed her and haunted her dream? (Katherine Anne Porter).
b) To keep under surveillance: followed the suspect around town.
3.
a) To move along the course of; take: We followed a path to the shore.
b) To go in the direction of; be guided by: followed the sun westward across the plains; followed the signs to the zoo.
4. To accept the guidance, command, or leadership of: follow a spiritual master; rebels who refused to follow their commander.
5. To adhere to; practice: followed family traditions.
6. To take as a model or precedent; imitate: followed my example and resigned.
7.
a) To act in agreement or compliance with; obey: follow the rules; follow one's instincts.
b) To keep to or stick to: followed the recipe; follow a diet.
8. To engage in (a trade or occupation); work at.
9. To come after in order, time, or position: Night follows day.
10. To bring something about at a later time than or as a consequence of: She followed her lecture with a question-and-answer period. The band followed its hit record with a tour.
11. To occur or be evident as a consequence of: Your conclusion does not follow your premise.
12.
a) To watch or observe closely: followed the bird through binoculars.
b) To be attentive to; pay close heed to: too sleepy to follow the sermon.
c) To keep oneself informed of the course, progress, or fortunes of: follow the stock market; followed the local teams.
13. To grasp the meaning or logic of; understand: Do you follow my argument?

To assume that in this context that "follow" means "proceed" (highlighted in green) is to disregard that the followings of said prophet are supposed to "follow" the basic precepts of the Gospel (highlighted in blue).

Yet, I suppose the understood words "the LORD" should be inserted after "follow". However, given the context, I would imagine that it's not that far of a stretch, considering that there will be a Prophet (Christ) that follows the LORD (Elohim).

..that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
If a prophet said something similar to "worship me and give me all your money", I would severely doubt his legitimacy, considering that the whole "worshipping" of faulty men is a little off-kilter with the Gospel sweatdrop

By that token, I could easily determine for my own self whether Mohammed was a prophet, a point which I intend to investigate 3nodding

[Shemnon]

Darkslider

Whitelightone

Darkslider

I am sorry Whitelightone, but you haven't presented anything nor have you proven anything.

The fact that I hold you to the same standard that I hold myself means that you are needing to back up your claims.

"Joseph is a false prophet and this is why I think that"

"No he isn't"

Well, I have presented my proof. You are the one that is contradicting yourself.

No. I have presented proof and you refuse to accept it. I see no contridictions. I gave no opinions save for at the end of my last post.

You have presented nothing. N. O. T. H. I. N. G. Thus far your argument has been "11 rules that I made up" and "It is true". As said before, saying it is. . . doesn't make it so.

I suggest that you look into it before saying that it's false. Oh wait...too late.

Quote:

Whitelightone

Darkslider

You assume hypocricy on my part for requiring you to meet your own sciptural standards when the only hypocrisy occuring is your not looking at the evidence presented and then making conclusions from your preconceived ideas, many of which are forced down your throat from a young age.

Not neccesarily. I suggest you take your own advice and read the thread. The Brainwashing claim has been shut down. For some reason I don't even think that you have even seen those 11 points before. WHICH YOU STILL NEED TO REFUTE.

A. Brainwashing has never been "shut down". I stopped discussing it because the Apologists stopped discussing it. Nothing was ever shut down or disproved.

B. Let's go over the history of this argument again.
1. Darkslider posts scriptural reference for his stance and then posts 46 false prophecies made by Joseph Smith. Darkslider also explains why he feels that the scriptural reference applies.

I Have posted scriptoral references that pointed otherwise.

Quote:

2. Whitelightone makes up 11 rules regarding prophecy. Whitelightone says that they are true. Whitelightone doesn't post anything to back up his claims.

Half true. I have posted the 11 rules, yes, but, whenever I post the scriptoral references that back it up, you say, "It doesn't count because I don't believe in it." Well it's not whether or not that you believe, I posted the evidence. I Suggest you look again, and then look at your "rebuttal"

Quote:

3. Darkslider points out Whitlightone's failure to post evidence. Whitelightone gets pissed off and claims that he already did.

That because you don't even make an effort to refute them. You just stare blankly at the screen and even though the evidence is there, your only response is "Well, I don't believe in it so it doesn't count." MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!

Quote:

4. Darkslider re-reads recent posts by Whitelightone and still doesn't see anything that can remotely be considered evidence that 11 rules are true. Darkslider continues reading and just sees more nonesense that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Try again. Something just might hit you square between the eyes.

Quote:

5. Oh, Darkslider finds Whitelightone not backing up his claims and trying to distract from it by attacking Darkslider's argument, again though, Whitelightone doesn't post any evidence or proof to back his claims.

Again, false.

Quote:

Whitelightone

Darkslider

How is asking you to follow your own cannonized scripture hypocrisy

You weren't asking me. You were the hypocrite, Mr. "I-Dion't-believe-in-the-Bible-but-I-use-it-when-it-comes-to-prophecy". If you don't believe in the Bible then why believe in Prophets at all?

I don't. That is the ******** point. Why are you so hung up on this? I don't believe in prophets, I don't believe that any prophet was true and I don't believe the Bible. Ok? Is that clear now? Now get back to posting your proof or shut the hell up.

I have. Just because you don't believe in it gives you no right to say that it's not. Are we not allowed to use the same sources you use?

[Shemnon]

Darkslider

Whitelightone

Here's a "failed prophecy" for you, Dark.

In 1841, Joseph Smith was told that the Second Coming would occur in 1886.

The Condition: He had to live until then.

Yeah, If you read my ******** posts I already talked about that one.

I also talked about the one that Joseph claimed that the 2nd Coming would happen in 189o-something. No conditions. Oops. Looks like that one didn't happen.

Condition was there, or did you just over look it?

Darkslider's second post on page 375

I was once praying earnestly upon this subject, and a voice said unto me: 'My son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man.'

Emphisas mine.

Say again?

[Kiritsu]

Darkslider

block-head

I just want to get something clear about Mormonsim, is it true you believe that you become gods if you lead a good life and do everything you're supposed to, i.e. accept jesus, do works and miracles.

Yes and no (note: Some stupid Apologist is probably going to disagree with me about this).

The Mormon religion does teach that all men can become gods. However, a very stringent set of requirements must be met in order for that godhood to be granted.

This, in my opinion, has more to do with justification of their stance on God, then it does what they believe. As I see it, they needed justification for creating a new God, and one that was elevated from mortal status. . . must be possible to recreate. Hence, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."

Ah, that's a neat point, except that to me it would seem to be the reverse... that the exalted man theology was creating SO THAT Joseph Smith could introduce the idea that man might become a god as well.

One thing that I find myself pondering, is whether Joseph Smith sincerely believed most of what he taught and really was trying to help people attain some sort of "fullness of glory", or if it was mostly for egotistical reasons...

[Theopneustos]

Silly how people would need to be righteous just for a prophecy to be fulfilled. Kind of contradicts the old Numbers 23:19 notion. Bzzt.

[Keene Maverick]

Kiritsu

Darkslider

block-head

I just want to get something clear about Mormonsim, is it true you believe that you become gods if you lead a good life and do everything you're supposed to, i.e. accept jesus, do works and miracles.

Yes and no (note: Some stupid Apologist is probably going to disagree with me about this).

The Mormon religion does teach that all men can become gods. However, a very stringent set of requirements must be met in order for that godhood to be granted.

This, in my opinion, has more to do with justification of their stance on God, then it does what they believe. As I see it, they needed justification for creating a new God, and one that was elevated from mortal status. . . must be possible to recreate. Hence, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."

Ah, that's a neat point, except that to me it would seem to be the reverse... that the exalted man theology was creating SO THAT Joseph Smith could introduce the idea that man might become a god as well.

One thing that I find myself pondering, is whether Joseph Smith sincerely believed most of what he taught and really was trying to help people attain some sort of "fullness of glory", or if it was mostly for egotistical reasons...

Darkslider here:

Kiritus. . .he declared himself king. How much more ego do you need?

[Pyropyre]

Theopneustos

Silly how people would need to be righteous just for a prophecy to be fulfilled.

Yet that is what happened in that instance of Jonah's prophecy that Nineveh would be destroyed. Prophecy can be conditional depending on the righteous of the people.

[Pyropyre]

sheehandan

Kiritus. . .he declared himself king. How much more ego do you need?

You mean when the president of the church sat as council president of the Council of Fifty. The political branch that include Non-Latter-day Saints could be members? It was a working demonstration of the principles and pattern for a future theocratic kingdom of God. The council did not challenge existing systems of law and government. It functioned as a private organization learning to operate under the belief that one day, when the Savior returns, the Council of Fifty or a council based on its principles, would govern the world under the King of Kings. The principles being those consistent with the ethics of scripture and with the protections and responsibilities of the Constitution of the United States.

I don't think thats an example of ego, per se. Not to say Joseph didn't have an ego. Just this doesn't speak for itself.

[Pyropyre]

Pyropyre

Theopneustos

Silly how people would need to be righteous just for a prophecy to be fulfilled.

Yet that is what happened in that instance of Jonah's prophecy that Nineveh would be destroyed. Prophecy, being anything that God tells the prophet, can be conditional depending on the righteous of the people.

[Cheri]

Pyropyre

sheehandan

Kiritus. . .he declared himself king. How much more ego do you need?

You mean when the president of the church sat as council president of the Council of Fifty. The political branch that include Non-Latter-day Saints could be members? It was a working demonstration of the principles and pattern for a future theocratic kingdom of God. The council did not challenge existing systems of law and government. It functioned as a private organization learning to operate under the belief that one day, when the Savior returns, the Council of Fifty or a council based on its principles, would govern the world under the King of Kings. The principles being those consistent with the ethics of scripture and with the protections and responsibilities of the Constitution of the United States.

I don't think thats an example of ego, per se. Not to say Joseph didn't have an ego. Just this doesn't speak for itself.

"the Council of Fifty or a council based on its principles, would govern the world under the King of Kings"

I find that to be a scary, scary thought.

[Pyropyre]

Yeah, the thought of a socialist theocracy would normally send a little shiver down the spine as well, but a socialist theocracy of under the rule of Christ himself surely can't be that bad. Especially since the world is supposedly going to turn into a rotting cesspool of sin and conflict (or at least more than usual).

[Darkslider]

[Cheri]

Pyropyre

Yeah, the thought of a socialist theocracy would normally send a little shiver down the spine as well, but a socialist theocracy of under the rule of Christ himself surely can't be that bad. Especially since the world is supposedly going to turn into a rotting cesspool of sin and conflict (or at least more than usual).

Pyropyre, why do you allow yourself exceptions? A socialist theocracy is either bad or good. It can't be both. I would call it a nightmare. A nightmare that goes so totally against my beliefs, and seeks to deny me the freedoms that my country allows me.

[Shemnon]

Page 377

Another Example using YOUR YARD STICK OF FALSE PROPHECY is Judges 13:5, where it is recounted that an angel promised Samson's mother that Samson would "begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." No matter how liberal or expansive one wants to be with the facts of Israelite history (as recorded in the Bible or elsewhere), there is no way it can reasonably be concluded that Samson fulfilled this prophecy. Not only did Samson fail to even "begin" to free Israel from the Philistines, but (1) there were times when he consorted with Philistine women, (2) he married a Philistine, (3) he himself never even led any Israelite troops against the Philistines, and (4) the Philistines eventually humiliated him.

Another example of so called "False Prophecy" to consider is the prophet Jeremiah - a great and inspired prophet who prophesied that king Zedekiah would "die in peace" (Jer. 34:4-5). Critics could argue that this prophecy did not prove to be true, for Zedekiah saw his sons killed by the conquering Babylonians and was himself blinded and put in prison, where he died in captivity - not in peace (Jer. 52:10-11).

Your attempt to condemn Joseph Smith using a standard that would, if applied to Ezekiel, Nathan, an Angel, Jeremiah, and Jonah, also condemn the Old Testament as a fraud. Therefore, just because a prophecy goes partially or totally unfulfilled does not mean it is false. Anyone who would deny this must explain those prophecies in the Bible which did not come to pass.

Also, Jeremiah 18:7-10:7-10; Jonah 3:4 I have more. The Bolded are what sources I did use, and you never did answer my question in my last post; Are we not allowed to use the same sources you use simply because you don't believe it? If that was the case, then why should you even bother posting information from 2think.org, lds-mormon.com, or even josephlied.com? Because we obviously don't believe it.

[Pyropyre]

Miss Cherie

Pyropyre

Yeah, the thought of a socialist theocracy would normally send a little shiver down the spine as well, but a socialist theocracy of under the rule of Christ himself surely can't be that bad. Especially since the world is supposedly going to turn into a rotting cesspool of sin and conflict (or at least more than usual).

Pyropyre, why do you allow yourself exceptions? A socialist theocracy is either bad or good. It can't be both. I would call it a nightmare. A nightmare that goes so totally against my beliefs, and seeks to deny me the freedoms that my country allows me.

As a Theocracy of anytype is antithetical to democracy, thats true, but why cast a vote on some important issue when someone who already knows what's best? And who knows better than Jesus?

Socialism only works in a perfect society. But I'm supposing that in millenium where a lion shall lay with the lamb, and society is anything like the City of Zion, maybe then we'd be ready to practise socialism.