It is a fact that the mormons made the same mistake the JW's did..

[joneysd]

You go ahead and think that all you want.

anyone can see it for themselves its really that obvious.

 

[Ran77]

anyone can see it for themselves its really that obvious.

Then there isn't any need to discuss it. Cool. That means we are done.

 

[joneysd]

In the History of the Church Volume 2, page 182, an eye witnesses account of Joseph Smith's prophecy in 1835 is recorded as: "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion--our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went to zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene."

is it possible for this to be taken as anything other than a false prophecy??

it so clearly claims the meeting was called by God, a bold claim in itself, it then claims the revelation was given by the Holy Spirit, another bold claim, that 56 years would wind up the return of the Lord.

it seems very clear and very clearly a false prophecy..

basic maths 1835 + 56 = 1891 and here we are in 2013... that is the basic math of false prophecy.

 

[joneysd]

is it possible for this to be taken as anything other than a false prophecy??

it so clearly claims the meeting was called by God, a bold claim in itself, it then claims the revelation was given by the Holy Spirit, another bold claim, that 56 years would wind up the return of the Lord.

it seems very clear and very clearly a false prophecy..

basic maths 1835 + 56 = 1891 and here we are in 2013... that is the basic math of false prophecy.

I guess no one can argue with math.

 

[joneysd]

is it possible for this to be taken as anything other than a false prophecy??

it so clearly claims the meeting was called by God, a bold claim in itself, it then claims the revelation was given by the Holy Spirit, another bold claim, that 56 years would wind up the return of the Lord.

it seems very clear and very clearly a false prophecy..

basic maths 1835 + 56 = 1891 and here we are in 2013... that is the basic math of false prophecy.

i'm so surprised that this is not be debated..

 

[ewells36]

Prophets - This site I just have come across deals with this issue in length. If you would like to know more, I implore you to go to the site and just read and see for yourself for the answer does lie within and yes, men are fallible. Even I, an inactive LDS member, state that Joseph Smith was a man, like all of us and was fallible. Even within the Bible it alludes to Paul stating that Christ will come back within his own generation and they will see it, but, it never happened as we know.

So instead of trying to disprove things in regards to Joseph Smith, why not learn about his life, what he taught about Christ and salvation and realize that even the prophets are fallible and are just men and do make mistakes and do speak out of personal opinion

But, if you do not want to go to the site I offered, here is the answer they give from the site

Note: Many critics' questions relate to quotations from the Journal of Discourses(J. of D.), which was a sixteen-page semimonthly subscription publication privately printed in Liverpool, England, in 1854-1886. It included articles written by twelve different authors who recorded the speeches, mostly in shorthand, as they were delivered from the pulpit. It has never served in the past as a source for official Church teachings or scripture. It reflects the personal feelings, opinions, and speculations of the writers and/or speakers of the time. Because of modern revelation and because of "line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept" progression, we now have information on some of the subjects that was not yet known when the Journal of Discourses was published. Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. It was not an official Church publication nor has it ever been a source for official Church doctrine.

1. Why did Christ not return in 1891 as Joseph Smith predicted? (History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 182)

A: Joseph Smith did consider 1890 as a possible date for the return of the Lord, but he did not consider this to be infallible. As a matter of fact he was quite confused about the date, as he relates. Joseph Smith received the revelation pertaining to the 56 years, or 1890, in the following manner:

"I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.' I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time." Doctrine & Covenants 130:14-17

The History of the Church provides the account of a meeting held on Feb. 14, 1835. The specific reference to Joseph Smith's sermon states:

...and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.

This statement does not quote Smith verbatim, nor does it say that he prophesied the time of the second coming. Instead, it states:

...even fifty-six years should wind up the scene. (Italics added)

We have no way of knowing whether the word should is Joseph Smith's or that of one or more of those who remembered the sermon in their diaries or journals. In either case, the use of should instead of would or will suggests that instead of prophesying, either Joseph Smith was expressing a personal opinion, or many of those who heard him considered him to be expressing a personal opinion.

I hope that this clears up this issue for all

Also, feel free to go here - http://josephsmith.net/?lang=eng - to learn about Joseph Smith and what he taught in regards to Christ

Also, go here http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/news/ If you really want to go to a temple before its dedicated, go if there is one that is being built in your area or has an open house to the public before its dedicated. You can see what its like on the inside and learn about what goes on in there....Nothing scary. I used to think, even when I was LDS, that the temple was a scary place due to all of the anti-LDS literature in stores and online. When I went to one, the one in Chicago, all my fears were alleviated and I was at peace within the temple. It is a sacred place for those who do work within. Thats what I came away with - a sacred spot for those who do the work within

Also, here are the church leaders testifying about Christ. Hope you enjoy below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srYKbh4ASuw

Eric

 

[Phantasman]

This questions whether the term "prophet" is one that predicts with accuracy from God or simply mans knowledge to forecast probabilities. Should and would have different meanings.

John said:
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
and.......
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

One has to wonder, does this mean prophecy? Paul thought it did.

If the Secret Book of James was truly James speaking what Christ said, then Muhammad, Smith and others cannot be prophets.

Then I asked him, "Lord, how shall we be able to prophesy to those who request us to prophesy to them? For there are many who ask us, and look to us to hear an oracle from us."
The Lord answered and said, "Do you not know that the head of prophecy was cut off with John?"
But I said, "Lord, can it be possible to remove the head of prophecy?"
The Lord said to me, "When you come to know what 'head' means, and that prophecy issues from the head, (then) understand the meaning of 'Its head was removed.' At first I spoke to you in parables, and you did not understand; now I speak to you openly, and you (still) do not perceive. Yet, it was you who served me as a parable in parables, and as that which is open in the (words) that are open. -Secret James

While James almost counters Paul as well, it doesn't counter the Gospel.

 

[joneysd]

Prophets - This site I just have come across deals with this issue in length. If you would like to know more, I implore you to go to the site and just read and see for yourself for the answer does lie within and yes, men are fallible. Even I, an inactive LDS member, state that Joseph Smith was a man, like all of us and was fallible. Even within the Bible it alludes to Paul stating that Christ will come back within his own generation and they will see it, but, it never happened as we know.

So instead of trying to disprove things in regards to Joseph Smith, why not learn about his life, what he taught about Christ and salvation and realize that even the prophets are fallible and are just men and do make mistakes and do speak out of personal opinion

But, if you do not want to go to the site I offered, here is the answer they give from the site

Note: Many critics' questions relate to quotations from the Journal of Discourses(J. of D.), which was a sixteen-page semimonthly subscription publication privately printed in Liverpool, England, in 1854-1886. It included articles written by twelve different authors who recorded the speeches, mostly in shorthand, as they were delivered from the pulpit. It has never served in the past as a source for official Church teachings or scripture. It reflects the personal feelings, opinions, and speculations of the writers and/or speakers of the time. Because of modern revelation and because of "line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept" progression, we now have information on some of the subjects that was not yet known when the Journal of Discourses was published. Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. It was not an official Church publication nor has it ever been a source for official Church doctrine.

1. Why did Christ not return in 1891 as Joseph Smith predicted? (History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 182)

A: Joseph Smith did consider 1890 as a possible date for the return of the Lord, but he did not consider this to be infallible. As a matter of fact he was quite confused about the date, as he relates. Joseph Smith received the revelation pertaining to the 56 years, or 1890, in the following manner:

"I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.' I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time." Doctrine & Covenants 130:14-17

The History of the Church provides the account of a meeting held on Feb. 14, 1835. The specific reference to Joseph Smith's sermon states:

...and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.

This statement does not quote Smith verbatim, nor does it say that he prophesied the time of the second coming. Instead, it states:

...even fifty-six years should wind up the scene. (Italics added)

We have no way of knowing whether the word should is Joseph Smith's or that of one or more of those who remembered the sermon in their diaries or journals. In either case, the use of should instead of would or will suggests that instead of prophesying, either Joseph Smith was expressing a personal opinion, or many of those who heard him considered him to be expressing a personal opinion.

I hope that this clears up this issue for all

Also, feel free to go here - Joseph Smith Prophet of God - to learn about Joseph Smith and what he taught in regards to Christ

Also, go here LDS Temple News If you really want to go to a temple before its dedicated, go if there is one that is being built in your area or has an open house to the public before its dedicated. You can see what its like on the inside and learn about what goes on in there....Nothing scary. I used to think, even when I was LDS, that the temple was a scary place due to all of the anti-LDS literature in stores and online. When I went to one, the one in Chicago, all my fears were alleviated and I was at peace within the temple. It is a sacred place for those who do work within. Thats what I came away with - a sacred spot for those who do the work within

Also, here are the church leaders testifying about Christ. Hope you enjoy below

LDS Video: Special Witnesses of Christ - YouTube

Eric

the bible says ignore false prophets, so i guess I will ignore smith..

 

[bbbbbbb]

Prophets - This site I just have come across deals with this issue in length. If you would like to know more, I implore you to go to the site and just read and see for yourself for the answer does lie within and yes, men are fallible. Even I, an inactive LDS member, state that Joseph Smith was a man, like all of us and was fallible. Even within the Bible it alludes to Paul stating that Christ will come back within his own generation and they will see it, but, it never happened as we know.

So instead of trying to disprove things in regards to Joseph Smith, why not learn about his life, what he taught about Christ and salvation and realize that even the prophets are fallible and are just men and do make mistakes and do speak out of personal opinion

But, if you do not want to go to the site I offered, here is the answer they give from the site

Note: Many critics' questions relate to quotations from the Journal of Discourses(J. of D.), which was a sixteen-page semimonthly subscription publication privately printed in Liverpool, England, in 1854-1886. It included articles written by twelve different authors who recorded the speeches, mostly in shorthand, as they were delivered from the pulpit. It has never served in the past as a source for official Church teachings or scripture. It reflects the personal feelings, opinions, and speculations of the writers and/or speakers of the time. Because of modern revelation and because of "line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept" progression, we now have information on some of the subjects that was not yet known when the Journal of Discourses was published. Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. It was not an official Church publication nor has it ever been a source for official Church doctrine.

1. Why did Christ not return in 1891 as Joseph Smith predicted? (History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 182)

A: Joseph Smith did consider 1890 as a possible date for the return of the Lord, but he did not consider this to be infallible. As a matter of fact he was quite confused about the date, as he relates. Joseph Smith received the revelation pertaining to the 56 years, or 1890, in the following manner:

"I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.' I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time." Doctrine & Covenants 130:14-17

The History of the Church provides the account of a meeting held on Feb. 14, 1835. The specific reference to Joseph Smith's sermon states:

...and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.

This statement does not quote Smith verbatim, nor does it say that he prophesied the time of the second coming. Instead, it states:

...even fifty-six years should wind up the scene. (Italics added)

We have no way of knowing whether the word should is Joseph Smith's or that of one or more of those who remembered the sermon in their diaries or journals. In either case, the use of should instead of would or will suggests that instead of prophesying, either Joseph Smith was expressing a personal opinion, or many of those who heard him considered him to be expressing a personal opinion.

I hope that this clears up this issue for all

Also, feel free to go here - Joseph Smith Prophet of God - to learn about Joseph Smith and what he taught in regards to Christ

Also, go here LDS Temple News If you really want to go to a temple before its dedicated, go if there is one that is being built in your area or has an open house to the public before its dedicated. You can see what its like on the inside and learn about what goes on in there....Nothing scary. I used to think, even when I was LDS, that the temple was a scary place due to all of the anti-LDS literature in stores and online. When I went to one, the one in Chicago, all my fears were alleviated and I was at peace within the temple. It is a sacred place for those who do work within. Thats what I came away with - a sacred spot for those who do the work within

Also, here are the church leaders testifying about Christ. Hope you enjoy below

LDS Video: Special Witnesses of Christ - YouTube

Eric

Hi Eric,

It seems that almost all non-LDS and many LDS agree on the fallibility of their past prophets, seers, and revelators, especially in regard to their embarrassing statements. What we have here is a statement that was declared to be infallible truth revealed by God Himself to Mr. Smith. If this is not true, then Mr. Smith was either grossly deceived by God or he was lying. Which is it?

Yours cordially,

bbbbbbb

 

[RevelationTestament]

Hi Eric,

It seems that almost all non-LDS and many LDS agree on the fallibility of their past prophets, seers, and revelators, especially in regard to their embarrassing statements. What we have here is a statement that was declared to be infallible truth revealed by God Himself to Mr. Smith. If this is not true, then Mr. Smith was either grossly deceived by God or he was lying. Which is it?

Yours cordially,

bbbbbbb

It's much the same for the prophets of the Bible, bbbbbbb. Catholic priests now practice celibacy based on the words of Paul. But Paul himself said that what he said was not by the way of commandment. In other words his words about practicing celibacy were his OPINION, yet they our in our scriptures. We have no reason to believe Peter divorced his wife in order to be the head apostle. And Timothy tells us that in the last days there will be those who depart from the faith forbidding to marry.

If you and Joney believe that God would say, "56 yrs should wind up the scene," that is your prerogative. I believe even the casual reader would say that is no law of God, and coming from anyone else would simply see it as the opinion of the speaker. But because Joseph claimed to be a prophet, we have endless streams of people who want to make every statement out of his mouth be words straight from God. It just doesn't work that way. JS was a man who often spoke matters of his own opinion, which often got recorded. God told him what to do, and he went and did it to his best ability. He didn't have God constantly speaking his every word for him.............
and neither did Paul....

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's much the same for the prophets of the Bible, bbbbbbb. Catholic priests now practice celibacy based on the words of Paul. But Paul himself said that what he said was not by the way of commandment. In other words his words about practicing celibacy were his OPINION, yet they our in our scriptures. We have no reason to believe Peter divorced his wife in order to be the head apostle. And Timothy tells us that in the last days there will be those who depart from the faith forbidding to marry.

If you and Joney believe that God would say, "56 yrs should wind up the scene," that is your prerogative. I believe even the casual reader would say that is no law of God, and coming from anyone else would simply see it as the opinion of the speaker. But because Joseph claimed to be a prophet, we have endless streams of people who want to make every statement out of his mouth be words straight from God. It just doesn't work that way. JS was a man who often spoke matters of his own opinion, which often got recorded. God told him what to do, and he went and did it to his best ability. He didn't have God constantly speaking his every word for him.............
and neither did Paul....

I think you may be confusing matters. To be sure, there are many who have misinterpreted the Bible, as you have noted. However, when an individual states clearly and forthrightly that what they are saying is the very oracle of the living God, then it would be a misinterpretation to fob it off as merely his personal eccentricity. Mr. Young is particularly guilty of this problem. He made many statements which he couched in completely dogmatic language which are now dismissed by the LDS as the babblings of a man with no more authority in the church, when he said these things, than an infant.

 

[RevelationTestament]

I am not confusing matters at all. I will be happy to quote Paul. He clearly was taking some liberties in his letter which is now considered scripture.

If you now want to change the subject to Brigham Young, fine. I am also conversant with his statements including the famous Adam-God statements.

 

[joneysd]

It's much the same for the prophets of the Bible, bbbbbbb. Catholic priests now practice celibacy based on the words of Paul. But Paul himself said that what he said was not by the way of commandment. In other words his words about practicing celibacy were his OPINION, yet they our in our scriptures. We have no reason to believe Peter divorced his wife in order to be the head apostle. And Timothy tells us that in the last days there will be those who depart from the faith forbidding to marry.

If you and Joney believe that God would say, "56 yrs should wind up the scene," that is your prerogative. I believe even the casual reader would say that is no law of God, and coming from anyone else would simply see it as the opinion of the speaker. But because Joseph claimed to be a prophet, we have endless streams of people who want to make every statement out of his mouth be words straight from God. It just doesn't work that way. JS was a man who often spoke matters of his own opinion, which often got recorded. God told him what to do, and he went and did it to his best ability. He didn't have God constantly speaking his every word for him.............
and neither did Paul....

Paul himself quite clearly states it is his opinion, thats a huge difference to smith saying ,God told me to call this meeting and God told me it will be in 56 years and then it does not, that is just as bbbbbb was saying smith is making God out to be a liar or smith is a liar.. and know which way i'm believing the lie came from..

 

[RevelationTestament]

Joney, I am not going to go round and round your interpretation of this which is clearly your interpretation which it seems you are never willing to let go of. Do you think God told Joseph "56 years should wind up the scene?" Clearly you don't... And neither do I. Just like Jesus allowed the disciples to think his return was imminent, so he allowed Joseph Smith to think such. But God clearly didn't tell Joseph Smith "56 years should wind up the scene." That is a ridiculous interpretation of that comment. In fact D & C clearly tells Joseph Smith and us that he was in the 6th seal or the 6th thousand years of the gospel, and that he would be expected in the 7th.

The Book of Mormon is really the only clear scripture we have on the return of Jesus himself. 3 Nephi 29:7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Don't the scriptures teach us Jesus was no more to return to corruption?
The earth must be cleansed before his personal return.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Don't the scriptures teach us Jesus was no more to return to corruption?
The earth must be cleansed before his personal return.

What is this about the earth being "cleansed" before He returns?

 

[RevelationTestament]

JST, Luke 17:40
40 And there shall be no unclean thing; for the earth becoming old, even as a garment, having waxed in corruption, wherefore it vanisheth away, and the footstool remaineth sanctified, cleansed from all sin.
JST, Hebrews 6:7
7 For the day cometh that the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them who dwelleth thereon, by whom it is dressed, who now receiveth blessings from God, shall be cleansed with fire.

 

[joneysd]

Joney, I am not going to go round and round your interpretation of this which is clearly your interpretation which it seems you are never willing to let go of. Do you think God told Joseph "56 years should wind up the scene?" Clearly you don't... And neither do I. Just like Jesus allowed the disciples to think his return was imminent, so he allowed Joseph Smith to think such. But God clearly didn't tell Joseph Smith "56 years should wind up the scene." That is a ridiculous interpretation of that comment. In fact D & C clearly tells Joseph Smith and us that he was in the 6th seal or the 6th thousand years of the gospel, and that he would be expected in the 7th.

The Book of Mormon is really the only clear scripture we have on the return of Jesus himself. 3 Nephi 29:7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.

You cannot debate smiths claim of the end of the world as it is clearly as he stated it and it is clearly a false prophecy.

and the BOm is so correct it makes us in to gods ourselves that have goddess wives and fill our own planets with our spirit children, none of which i ever see in God's word, the Bible..

 

[RevelationTestament]

You cannot debate smiths claim of the end of the world as it is clearly as he stated it and it is clearly a false prophecy.

and the BOm is so correct it makes us in to gods ourselves that have goddess wives and fill our own planets with our spirit children, none of which i ever see in God's word, the Bible..

Here you go again. Show it from the BoM. Not there either.

 

[Jack Terrence]

JST, Luke 17:40
40 And there shall be no unclean thing; for the earth becoming old, even as a garment, having waxed in corruption, wherefore it vanisheth away, and the footstool remaineth sanctified, cleansed from all sin.
JST, Hebrews 6:7
7 For the day cometh that the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them who dwelleth thereon, by whom it is dressed, who now receiveth blessings from God, shall be cleansed with fire.

There is NOTHING unclean today (Romans 14:14). We live under the new covenant.