On Melquisedec Priesthood

[BenRaines]

Thanks Jason. I was being a bit sarcastic. I doubt that most LDS scholars, that would imply that they are LDS. I agree with you that there are some scholars of LDS history or beliefs that would feel that way and some of them may be former LDS members but I doubt you would find many LDS members who are scholars of LDS history and beliefs that would be supporting the idea that Serg has suggested.

I am a pain in the butt about people using generalities. Most, many, the majority, all, every are used to try to add emphasis to a belief but my experience has been it is purely to add emphasis and is not based on fact.

Ben Raines

[BenRaines]

Soulsearcher,

You are absolutely right. If they were to come out against the church or attempt to refute a belief then they may end up called before a disciplinary council of the church.

My feeling is that if the evidence were so overwhelming that there would not be a few, a dozen? A hundred? A thousand? to call us all idiots to believe what we believe.

Serg has made one point. We as LDS do not consider the prophet to be infalable (sp). He too is a mortal man just like the rest of us but chosen for his special mission. Were mistakes made? I am sure. Does it change what happened that day and many other times during his life? I don't believe so.

Ben Raines

[Dr T]

Hello all,

Interesting topic. Do we know what scripture (Bible) says about prophets who make prophecy that does not come to pass?

THanks

[BenRaines]

Dr. T.,

How do we know the specific date that the prophecy is to come to past. Not many prophets, as some have, will name the date.

Even Christ did not name dates. As many believe he prophesied of a return and soon. It has been almost 2,000 years so soon is in the eyes of the beholder.

The Lord offered the children of Israel a land of milk and honey but only one of that generation made it to the promised land. Of those that left Egypt who was it that made it to the promised land?

Ben Raines

[Serg]

Soulsearcher,

You are absolutely right. If they were to come out against the church or attempt to refute a belief then they may end up called before a disciplinary council of the church.

My feeling is that if the evidence were so overwhelming that there would not be a few, a dozen? A hundred? A thousand? to call us all idiots to believe what we believe.

Serg has made one point. We as LDS do not consider the prophet to be infalable (sp). He too is a mortal man just like the rest of us but chosen for his special mission. Were mistakes made? I am sure. Does it change what happened that day and many other times during his life? I don't believe so.

Ben Raines

Yes Ben, but that a member or a scholar(lds) might recognize, publish or teach what a historical fact shows, and such a fact being negative, it does not bring them to "church court", the proof, is that such scholars and members have always existed and the Church has done NOTHING concerning their vital claims. Of one famous, is the scholar that gave a conference at Brigham Young's University concerning masonry and Joseph Smith, afterwards came the God Makers based on it, and the Church preassured that brother to retract or to spiritualize it "to make himself clear" etc...that lds scholar did so.

But thses scholars(and i tell you, visit fairlds.org, and see), most, yes MOST admit faults in Smith character's and our history also, but their motto is that such things though REAL have nothing to do with our knowledge of TRUTH.

Regards,

Dr. T.,

How do we know the specific date that the prophecy is to come to past. Not many prophets, as some have, will name the date.

Even Christ did not name dates. As many believe he prophesied of a return and soon. It has been almost 2,000 years so soon is in the eyes of the beholder.

The Lord offered the children of Israel a land of milk and honey but only one of that generation made it to the promised land. Of those that left Egypt who was it that made it to the promised land?

Ben Raines

That is true, even if Dr.T as i presume wants or wanted to quote deuteronomy here

[Outshined]

I agree with you that there are some scholars of LDS history or beliefs that would feel that way and some of them may be former LDS members but I doubt you would find many LDS members who are scholars of LDS history and beliefs that would be supporting the idea that Serg has suggested.

Exactly.

We as LDS do not consider the prophet to be infalable (sp). He too is a mortal man just like the rest of us but chosen for his special mission. Were mistakes made? I am sure. Does it change what happened that day and many other times during his life? I don't believe so.

Also quite true, of pretty much every prophet in history. B)

[BenRaines]

So if the purpose of this thread is to have us, LDS members, admit that the Prophet Joseph Smith, was not perfect then I am in agreement. Even that some things that may have happened or he was accussed of could be correct or not. Truth, historical truth, is often in the eye of the person documenting it. I do not believe that most writers write thinking that their writings will be what history is based upon. They are writing in the moment. Often in a passionate moment when they feel that they have greatly succeded or perhaps been terribly wronged. I would suggest out of the mouth of two or three witnesses it be based and then again only if the two or three were not wronged in the same deal.

An example, pure example only not historical or any specific reference:

I am in business with three other individuals. We do very well in our business dealings and end up selling the company and doing well. Three of the partners feel it was a fair deal but they also felt that we could have held out for more and the more they discuss it they now feel that I forced them to sell prematurely. The more they discuss it the worse I am. As they each write in their journal about the experience I now am a bad businessman who cost them many dollars by forcing them to sell and sell early. It was a good deal. We all made money but history will not remember that they will remember that these three felt forced out and lost all the money they could have made.

Just some thoughts of mine.

Ben Raines

[Serg]

So if the purpose of this thread is to have us, LDS members, admit that the Prophet Joseph Smith, was not perfect then I am in agreement. Even that some things that may have happened or he was accussed of could be correct or not. Truth, historical truth, is often in the eye of the person documenting it. I do not believe that most writers write thinking that their writings will be what history is based upon. They are writing in the moment. Often in a passionate moment when they feel that they have greatly succeded or perhaps been terribly wronged. I would suggest out of the mouth of two or three witnesses it be based and then again only if the two or three were not wronged in the same deal.

An example, pure example only not historical or any specific reference:

I am in business with three other individuals. We do very well in our business dealings and end up selling the company and doing well. Three of the partners feel it was a fair deal but they also felt that we could have held out for more and the more they discuss it they now feel that I forced them to sell prematurely. The more they discuss it the worse I am. As they each write in their journal about the experience I now am a bad businessman who cost them many dollars by forcing them to sell and sell early. It was a good deal. We all made money but history will not remember that they will remember that these three felt forced out and lost all the money they could have made.

Just some thoughts of mine.

Ben Raines

First:

Truth, historical truth, is often in the eye of the person documenting it. I do not believe that most writers write thinking that their writings will be what history is based upon. They are writing in the moment.

Let it be known that (including Joseph-before his calling) most pioneers and members(starting in 1833 with the 12 Quorum) wrote in their diaries as a witness to history, as a base for such. That it would be remembered the things that "were". They were not told that their records(including those officially held by the church historian-starting with Cowdery in 1832) were only for their ammusement or spiritual growth, but as a commandment for history.

Second:

I would suggest out of the mouth of two or three witnesses it be based and then again only if the two or three were not wronged in the same deal.

The claims for infability of Joseph(and his economic administration-that failed) are not documeted on one diary, or one document, or even one's other document rather than Smith's own account of things, not only docens of diaries and government documents(dealing with Smith's administration at Navoo), or docens of maganines articles(published by Smith, even signed), but also his own writtings. Know what? There is no logic need for those MANY account witnesses for his failure in many things when we have his own humble admissions. That is one of the reasons for which i believe that man to be a prophet, even feel him to be more of a prophet that the afterwards ones, anyways, history is not an exact science, but logic almost is.

Just some thoughts of mine,

Regards,