Men, Or Men Of God?

[BrotherHinds]

I have read some recent posts from individuals not of the church that question the validity of the claim that the presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are prophets of our Heavenly Father. Yet I ask them, how many of the prophets of old were infallible?

Was Noah infallible? What about Abraham, Isaac, or perhaps Jacob? What about Joseph who was sold into Egypt? And how about Moses? Oh and we LDS also sustain our apostles as prophets of God. So what about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Peter? James? Thomas? What about Andrew? Philip and Bartholomew? James son of Alphaeus? Or what about Thaddaeus or Simon? And we can't forget Judas Iscariot? Were any of these men perfect or infallible? Yet you say that the leaders of the LDS church can not be prophets of God because they are not perfect. Especially in the case of Joseph Smith.

Why is it so hard for people to believe that there can be prophets of God upon the earth today in 2006? Or how is it that people can say that if there are prophets or people that claim to be prophets on the earth today that they must be false prophets?

Why is it now and why was it then in 1820 so hard for people to believe that God, our Heavenly Father, could speak to a 14 year old boy who had offered up the most humble and tender of prayers to God?

I also ask, if you believe so strongly that Joseph Smith was not called of God, that the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints are not prophets of God, that the Church is not true, and that the Book of Mormon is not true, for you to look inside yourself and ask yourself some very important questions:

What evil did Joseph Smith, Jr. ever do to others?

Did Joseph ever seek the death of any he came in contact with?

Did Joseph ever tar and feather anyone?

Did Joseph ever demand someone to deny their faith at gun point?

Did Joseph ever order the imprisonment of anyone on false pretenses, or simply because they said they had seen a vision or had seen angels?

Did Joseph ever burn someone's home or order the burning of their home?

Did Joseph ever order the extermination of entire group of people because they would not give up land that had been bought and paid for and to which they had a signed deed to?

Have any of the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since the days of Joseph Smith, Jr. done anything to bring about evil by seeking to destroy another church, annihilate an entire body of people because of their religion?

Does the Book of Mormon speak against Christ and His Attonement?

Does the Book or Mormon teach one to value riches over the word of God?

Does the Book of Mormon teach anyone to do anything contrary to the Ten Commandments of God or the teachings of Christ as spoken in the Sermon on the Mount?

Does the Book of Mormon teach us to seek salvation in and through anyone or anything other than through Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Holy One of Israel?

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:15-20

There has only ever been one perfect and completely infallible man upon the earth and that was our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in whom we find salvation and eternal life.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm going to answer some of these questions, not so much to start or egg on a debate, but so that folk understand the POV of non-LDS Christians.

Was Noah infallible? What about Abraham, Isaac, or perhaps Jacob? What about Joseph who was sold into Egypt? And how about Moses? Oh and we LDS also sustain our apostles as prophets of God. So what about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Peter? James? Thomas? What about Andrew? Philip and Bartholomew? James son of Alphaeus? Or what about Thaddaeus or Simon? And we can't forget Judas Iscariot? Were any of these men perfect or infallible? Yet you say that the leaders of the LDS church can not be prophets of God because they are not perfect. Especially in the case of Joseph Smith.

I'm not sure that too many Christians argue that prophets of God must have lived perfect lives. A key difference between the biblical prophets and the LDS prophets, is that the former generally called the household of God to repent of their SINS and RETURN to the worship of God. Non-LDS perceive Joseph Smith and the other LDS prophets as calling Christians to repent of their CHURCHES, and to turn to a whole new theology and worship.

Why is it so hard for people to believe that there can be prophets of God upon the earth today in 2006? Or how is it that people can say that if there are prophets or people that claim to be prophets on the earth today that they must be false prophets?

Because of Joseph Smith's teachings regarding the apostasy of Christian churches and clergy and professors, and a call to a whole new religious practice. Again, biblical prophets primarily called people to repent of sin and to RETURN to the household of God.

Why is it now and why was it then in 1820 so hard for people to believe that God, our Heavenly Father, could speak to a 14 year old boy who had offered up the most humble and tender of prayers to God?

Again, it was the message that was rejected. If the messeage is wrong, then the messenger must be wrong...or so the thinking must go.

What evil did Joseph Smith, Jr. ever do to others?

His teachings on apostasy and restoration would be extremely offensive to those deemed apostate and unrestored.

Did Joseph ever seek the death of any he came in contact with? Did Joseph ever tar and feather anyone? Did Joseph ever demand someone to deny their faith at gun point? Did Joseph ever order the imprisonment of anyone on false pretenses, or simply because they said they had seen a vision or had seen angels? Did Joseph ever burn someone's home or order the burning of their home? Did Joseph ever order the extermination of entire group of people because they would not give up land that had been bought and paid for and to which they had a signed deed to?

No. However, he surely could have been tempted, had he had the power--we all struggle against fallen natures that are suspectible to the corruption power brings (note my signature). Furthermore, respectable Christians today would not favor such actions.

Does the Book of Mormon teach us to seek salvation in and through anyone or anything other than through Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Holy One of Israel?

There have been many strings here and elsewhere about this whole "grace vs. works" controversy. Does grace lead to salvation which leads to works, or is salvation ultimately conditioned upon successful works? Many Christians perceive the BOM as teaching the latter, and beg to differ.

There has only ever been one perfect and completely infallible man upon the earth and that was our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in whom we find salvation and eternal life.

Amen.

[BrotherHinds]

Thank you so much for your comments. See this is the sort of discussions we should be having, and the manner in which issues should be confronted. Instead, so many allow themselves to take offense and harden their hearts towards one another's counsel and seek not to understand one another, but to destroy one another's position.

I'm not sure that too many Christians argue that prophets of God must have lived perfect lives. A key difference between the biblical prophets and the LDS prophets, is that the former generally called the household of God to repent of their SINS and RETURN to the worship of God. Non-LDS perceive Joseph Smith and the other LDS prophets as calling Christians to repent of their CHURCHES, and to turn to a whole new theology and worship.

True. I can see where they might perceive these men in this light, but then why did they state to Joseph Smith and others that there coul be no prophets, priesthood, revelation, visitations from heavenly messengers, or miracles like the ones Christ performed because all those things had been done away with the death of the apostles? It is thought by many mainstream Christians that there can be no more revelation and that we do not need Heavenly Father speaking to us today except through the word He gave to man thousands and thousands of years prior to our own day before the use of the internet, credit card debt, and television?

Because of Joseph Smith's teachings regarding the apostasy of Christian churches and clergy and professors, and a call to a whole new religious practice. Again, biblical prophets primarily called people to repent of sin and to RETURN to the household of God.

I can very well understand how these great men of learning could feel that Joseph was calling them to repent of their CHURCHES, but you have to think that there were those in Paul's day that had turned aside from sound and true doctrine and were called to repentance and they were professed followers of Christ. Also think about the fact that you mentioned professors. These are men who went to great universities of high aclaim to study with the brightest minds of the field of theology and learned in the doctrines of Martin Luther or the founders of other religious sects of the day, and got degrees and licensure that said that they were authorized to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all mankind. They felt that this certificate gave them authority to baptise, to ordain even. Is this not a rejection of sound doctrine, of the teachings of Christ who taught His disciples to go into the world without purse or script, and weren't these men ordained by Christ Himself to teach and not ordained by one lacking the proper authority?

Yes I can see how these people could have believed and still believe that they are not rejecting God or His Son Jesus Christ and that Joseph was calling them to repent of their Church, but was not this the same view of the priests and elders of the Jews in the days of Christ, or even in the days of Jeremiah, Uziah, and other prophets that called the people of Jerusalem to repentance? I do not see where this line of thinking makes Joseph a false prophet, but I can see how these men could call Joseph and the other leaders false prophets because it is exactly the same thing that the elders of the Jews had done to some of the prophets of old and even to Christ. They called them false prophets, stoned them, beat them, fed them to lions, burnt them, crucified them, drove them from their midst. Yet the things that they have said and done to these men does not make Joseph Smith or any of the other leaders of the church false prophets.

His teachings on apostasy and restoration would be extremely offensive to those deemed apostate and unrestored.

True. Very true, but anything anyone says or does can be extremely offensive. Does that mean that anything offensive is evil? I think not. The elders of the Jews took the teachings of Christ to be offensive, but were His teachings any less true?

There have been many strings here and elsewhere about this whole "grace vs. works" controversy. Does grace lead to salvation which leads to works, or is salvation ultimately conditioned upon successful works? Many Christians perceive the BOM as teaching the latter, and beg to differ.

That is true that they may believe that it teaches the latter, but they do not fully understand the doctrine of Faith and Works. Faith is the what grants us salvation, but that faith must be proven by our works. You can not simply say I believe and then expect to enter the kingdom of God. Someone who takes the life of an innocent person in a brutal act of murder and then professes to believe in Christ just before he is given the lethal injection is not going to live with Heavenly Father and dwell in His glorious presence for all eternity. "Show me your faith and your works and I shall show you my faith by my works, faith without works is dead."

It just makes me laugh at how people can study the Bible their whole lives, memorizing countless passages of scripture from the Bible, and go through hours upon hours of study to UNDERSTAND the Bible, yet still reject the thought that a restoration of the Gospel as taught by Christ, and a restoration of the Church as organized by Christ, with the proper authority as given by and through Christ, would not be necessary since it is obvious that that power and authority and organization was lost with the death of the original twelve disciples of Christ.

I do thank you however for you comments and insight into the POV of non-LDS people. It has been helpful in knowing why they believe the way they believe so that I might better explain my own beliefs in a way that they might comprehend easier. Thank you friend.

[XtarsiA]

someone challenging whether LDS prohpets really are prophets or not, is a sideways tactic for attaking LDS followers faith...

personaly i dont actually care wether they are genuine or not, i will know by there words and actions who they are, just as (his name slips my mind) was easily able to discern between god and the evil one.

we're here to find truth and and learn to understand it, who speaks truth isnt important aslong as it is the truth that they speak.

im sure theres an apropiate scripture for this.. about prophets something along the lines of "by there words you shall know them" or something... i could be wrong.

[BrotherHinds]

someone challenging whether LDS prohpets really are prophets or not, is a sideways tactic for attaking LDS followers faith...

personaly i dont actually care wether they are genuine or not, i will know by there words and actions who they are, just as (his name slips my mind) was easily able to discern between god and the evil one.

we're here to find truth and and learn to understand it, who speaks truth isnt important aslong as it is the truth that they speak.

im sure theres an apropiate scripture for this.. about prophets something along the lines of "by there words you shall know them" or something... i could be wrong.

I have quoted the verse that you are refering to in my previous post. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you so much for your comments. See this is the sort of discussions we should be having, and the manner in which issues should be confronted. Instead, so many allow themselves to take offense and harden their hearts towards one another's counsel and seek not to understand one another, but to destroy one another's position.

Welcome to LDStalk. This type of dialogue is par for the course, here. (Well...sometimes, anyway.)

True. I can see where they might perceive these men in this light, but then why did they state to Joseph Smith and others that there coul be no prophets, priesthood, revelation, visitations from heavenly messengers, or miracles like the ones Christ performed because all those things had been done away with the death of the apostles? It is thought by many mainstream Christians that there can be no more revelation and that we do not need Heavenly Father speaking to us today except through the word He gave to man thousands and thousands of years prior to our own day before the use of the internet, credit card debt, and television?

There is a school of thought amongst Christians known as Cessationism. It's closely linked to Dispensationalism, and argues that the "ecstatic" or "demonstration" gifts of the Spirit ceased with the end of the "apostolic age." Now that we have the Bible, we don't need all the "flash," the theory goes.

By and large, most scholars reject this view today. Some fundamentalists still hold to it. However, during the 19th century, the view was still widely held. IM Always HO, Pentecostalism probably helped break that line of thinking.

As for the canon of Scripture, Prof. Blomberg (Denver Seminary), in a book he co-authored with BYU Prof. Robinson, stated the standard view most Christian scholars would agree with: it's not that God could not add to the Scripture, it's just that He has not done so for so long. Furthermore, and more importantly, any new message that claimed to be "of God," and worthy of inclusion in the canon, would be subjected to the already existing canon. My understanding is that LDS prophets are accepted as being of God, and therefore all previous revelation is interpreted in light of God's latest word.

That's all I can address now....I comment on the rest of this post later.

[Blessed]

all of Jesus' disciples left him at his hour of need. They ran and hid like dogs. Yet they still built the church which has lasted until today. We know of Jesus Christ because of them. Those who were weak and afraid and had feet of clay. Those that had feet of clay I can relate to more than I can in Christ in so many ways... I have clay feet too.

[Dr T]

Amen Blessed :)

[prisonchaplain]

I can very well understand how these great men of learning could feel that Joseph was calling them to repent of their CHURCHES, but you have to think that there were those in Paul's day that had turned aside from sound and true doctrine and were called to repentance and they were professed followers of Christ. Also think about the fact that you mentioned professors. These are men who went to great universities of high aclaim to study with the brightest minds of the field of theology and learned in the doctrines of Martin Luther or the founders of other religious sects of the day, and got degrees and licensure that said that they were authorized to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all mankind. They felt that this certificate gave them authority to baptise, to ordain even. Is this not a rejection of sound doctrine, of the teachings of Christ who taught His disciples to go into the world without purse or script, and weren't these men ordained by Christ Himself to teach and not ordained by one lacking the proper authority?

If Joseph Smith was doing what Jesus was doing, then the response was understable. However, we generally hear that Joseph Smith was a prophet, so my mind general thinks of Samuel, Jeremiah, perhaps even John the Baptist.

As for professors, they teach. They don't administer ordinances/sacraments of the church. You're real question is who has the authority to commission those who would lead God's people (as bishops/clergy, as deacons/elders etc.)? Joseph Smith said that only he and the COJCLDS had/have that authority. So, yes, that would have been off-putting to others, who believed they were legitimately exercising that authority.

BTW, certificates and the like are only symbolic of the approval that's been given. My own fellowship, for examples, states quite adamantly that it is only recognizing the selecting/ordaining that God has done.

Concerning provision for church leaders: There is plenty of evidence that in the NT era and immediately following, the leaders of churches (bishops/overseers) were supported. Paul finds it necessary to defend his choice not to be supported. A workmen is due his pay. Such is not a source of pride or ostentation, and most clergy live near near the middle of their congregation's economic standard.

Yes I can see how these people could have believed and still believe that they are not rejecting God or His Son Jesus Christ and that Joseph was calling them to repent of their Church, but was not this the same view of the priests and elders of the Jews in the days of Christ, or even in the days of Jeremiah, Uziah, and other prophets that called the people of Jerusalem to repentance?

If it were, then we would indeed need to repent. The other prophets called Israel to repent of worshiping false gods, sexual immorality, intermarrying with unbelievers, etc. So, the key question: were the Christian churches of Joseph Smith's day apostate? Were they guilty of paganism, of endorsing immorality, of compromising with the sinful world's spirituality?

I do not see where this line of thinking makes Joseph a false prophet,

IF the Christian church was/is NOT apostate. If it is acceptable and pleasing (though surely not perfect) to the Heavenly Father, and if the clergy and professors were teaching and leading with sound doctrine and example, THEN Joseph Smith would have been wrong, and his prophetic messages false.

but I can see how these men could call Joseph and the other leaders false prophets because it is exactly the same thing that the elders of the Jews had done to some of the prophets of old and even to Christ. They called them false prophets, stoned them, beat them, fed them to lions, burnt them, crucified them, drove them from their midst. Yet the things that they have said and done to these men does not make Joseph Smith or any of the other leaders of the church false prophets.

If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then, in many ways, he was indeed like John the Baptist. Ironically, like John, his death was at the hands of "Rome" (civilian government), not the Jews (religious enemies).

True. Very true, but anything anyone says or does can be extremely offensive. Does that mean that anything offensive is evil? I think not. The elders of the Jews took the teachings of Christ to be offensive, but were His teachings any less true?

No. However, Jesus and many of his disciples were killed, and there was an eventual rift between the rejectors of Jesus and those who embraced--one that did indeed result in a new religion. To this day, if you want to make a Jew angry, tell him/her that you are a Messianic Jew. They'll angrily respond that any Jew who follows Jesus has cut him/herself off from God's people.

That is true that they may believe that it teaches the latter, but they do not fully understand the doctrine of Faith and Works. Faith is the what grants us salvation, but that faith must be proven by our works. You can not simply say I believe and then expect to enter the kingdom of God. Someone who takes the life of an innocent person in a brutal act of murder and then professes to believe in Christ just before he is given the lethal injection is not going to live with Heavenly Father and dwell in His glorious presence for all eternity. "Show me your faith and your works and I shall show you my faith by my works, faith without works is dead."

You have captured the divide very well. In that same scenario, I would say that only God knows. If the killer was truly repentent, truly believed, he might indeed enter the heavenly kingdom to spend eternity with the Heavenly Father. God won't be played. We cannot count on living our whole lives for the Devil, and then turning at the last possible moment. However, Jesus did say that laborers brought in for the last hour would get the same pay as those who started first thing in the morning.

It just makes me laugh at how people can study the Bible their whole lives, memorizing countless passages of scripture from the Bible, and go through hours upon hours of study to UNDERSTAND the Bible, yet still reject the thought that a restoration of the Gospel as taught by Christ, and a restoration of the Church as organized by Christ, with the proper authority as given by and through Christ, would not be necessary since it is obvious that that power and authority and organization was lost with the death of the original twelve disciples of Christ.

If you really want to understand this, you'll need to sober up. These people you are discussing represent 99.4% of the Christian world. Adherents of the LDS restoration represent .6%. It doesn't mean your wrong...but with that many "not getting it," you might need to think a little more seriously about why we're not getting it.

I do thank you however for you comments and insight into the POV of non-LDS people. It has been helpful in knowing why they believe the way they believe so that I might better explain my own beliefs in a way that they might comprehend easier. Thank you friend.

Once again, I get to end with a simple: AMEN.

[BrotherHinds]

Thank you once again for your insightful comments, and the slight chastisement for one of my comments there. I know I sometimes can become a little overzealous in my approach to things and say things in a way that comes off a little harsher or high minded than I might like and I need a little chastisement to bring me down and take another look at how I approached the issue. I feel that this thread may have run it's course with your most recent post, but will address one point that you made in a new thread. Until then God bless you my friend.

[Snow]

Yet you say that the leaders of the LDS church can not be prophets of God because they are not perfect.

Do you have an example of anyone who has said that?

I doubt it.

[Traveler]

In general it appears to me the G-d calls men to be prophets that the world cannot see any reason for and have no intention of listing to. He just does not seem to respect the popular guys. For years I could not come up with a reason the the people of Nineveh listened to Jonah - until I read between the lines.

What good is a prophet that tells you what you already know? If someone is not saying against the prophet - what is the likelihood that they are not really a prophet? I go by the concept that if you do not like what someone is saying then you better have something better to provide. Just talking someone down without providing something better says much more about the critic.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Hey Traveler,

What did the "reading between the lines" say about the Ninevites? Why do you think they changed?

Thanks,

Dr T

[Serg]

Again,

a debate of this magnitude cannot get anywhere until coherent and sistematics proposals are given, for example, concepts and their "truth". However, although Joseph was not evil compared to they who surredered him(including Church officials), he indeed had(as every one would have) bad thoughts concerning people, thretened people, fought people, was impulsive, liked wine, lied to his wife(plenty of times), was unfaithful to her, and many other things that even so add nothing to him compared with the sinister evil shown by most christians. Now, it is worthless to establish who is right and who is wrong based on their personal practice of truth, indeed(even in logical terms) a messenger can be totally wrong(within himself) and yet carry a truthful and positive message. Just as when we have two premises, and one of them is wrong, the conclusion might still(12 times) be right.

Nonetheless, we should base the truthfulness of this Church(if proposing it in a debate) on concrete concepts, questions and answers, doctrinal fundaments, etc... Even so, we cannot establish the truth of anything at all, just studying the "correlations" between old christianity and modern, for both(mormonism and protestantism) do not resemble completely the primitive model. So we may as well tire our selves basing Smith's truthfulness in his character(or not), but that will never lead anywhere that concerns the purpose of the thread.

We may do better in considering(and poundering) philosophical truths, order, logic, revealed knowledge, Scripture, and all that in light of our personal (internal)experience.

In fact, i would dearly recommend you to read(as a must) William James' The Will to believe, and, The variaties of religious experience.

its a philosophical-psicological treatsie on how justified in humanity, belief can be.

regards,