Recent Fulfilled Mormon Prophecies

[bbbbbbb]

That's the game, isn't it? Criticize the LDS for something and when it is pointed out that the same criticism is just as applicable to orthodox beliefs, or even the events in the Bible, then it becomes an irrelevant point. Probably the biggest reason why I reject what the orthodox Christians have to offer. I don't believe God and the truth He presents is based on a double standard.

First, I have not criticized the LDS in this thread. The thread merely raised the question as to any recent predictions by the Mormon prophet, seer, and revelator which have come to pass. If you cannot answer the question, please say so, but don't construe a question as a criticism.

 

[TasteForTruth]

For the benefit of mankind, as it states. It would certainly be for the benefit of mankind if a prophet were to warn them of an impending catastrophe. If this is a valid action by the leader of your church, then it would seem that it must occur - even if just on occasion. If this is invalid, then why it is included as a description of his actions?

My question still remains as to when the last occasion was when this took place.

Your question remains because you have not clarified your reasons for isolating such actions from the others listed, which clarification I have requested. Additionally, you have framed your question on a basis other than that provided in the definition I provided. The definition clearly stated that prophets "may be inspired to foretell." But you have presumed to change the parameter from "may be" to "must"—such prophecies, you presume, "must occur - even if just on occasion." Well, no. That is not true. Granting "inspiration to foretell" is the prerogative of God, not of man. If God does not choose to inspire a prophet to foretell a thing, the prophet will remain in the dark as to that thing, just like all other men. There is no "must" about it.

So, if you want your question answered by LDS, and if you want the answer to be aligned with LDS doctrine (or at least perspective), please clarify why you have isolated one possible action of a prophet—which by the definition provided cannot be presumed, within the LDS view, to occur with any predictable or cyclical or quantitative frequency—from all other possible actions of a prophet, among which are stated those actions which are defined in LDS doctrine as primary purposes or responsibilities of a prophet.

 

[Ran77]

First, I have not criticized the LDS in this thread. The thread merely raised the question as to any recent predictions by the Mormon prophet, seer, and revelator which have come to pass. If you cannot answer the question, please say so, but don't construe a question as a criticism.

No worries, I haven't construed a question as a criticism. And my statement still stands.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Trying to push things into the prophecy that isnt there, sounds just like all the other failed prophecies.

Trying to force all the prophecy to apply to the Civil War is what doesn't fit sir. The prophecy obviously doesn't refer to just this one war. It was a warning that it was just the beginning of the consumption decreed:
"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 be hold it cometh quickly saith the Lord.”

Not to mention this prophecy wasnt 30 years before the war, but a few weeks before it. Just sayin......

????
No sir. This prophecy was published 30 years before the civil war occurred after Joseph Smith's death. I'm not sure how else to address your allegation. Confirmation of its publishing was both in a local periodical and in the publishing of the D & C. Joseph Smith was killed in the 1840's and the Civil War started in 1861 beginning with the rebellion of SC as prophesied. Also as prophecied the South called upon Great Britain for help. Also as prophesied war was subsequently poured out on the whole world. Trying to force that directly into the revelation concerning the Civil War is what does not necessarily follow. Joseph Smith usually dictated his revelations to a scribe who wrote it and added punctuation. The fact that they sometimes got the punctuation wrong has been a fairly common subject in LDS circles. It is somewhat akin to translating Hebrew and having to add the punctuation according to what we think the Lord means. Joseph Smith did review the revelations, but tbh he really wasn't very learned in grammar.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Your question remains because you have not clarified your reasons for isolating such actions from the others listed, which clarification I have requested. Additionally, you have framed your question on a basis other than that provided in the definition I provided. The definition clearly stated that prophets "may be inspired to foretell." But you have presumed to change the parameter from "may be" to "must"—such prophecies, you presume, "must occur - even if just on occasion." Well, no. That is not true. Granting "inspiration to foretell" is the prerogative of God, not of man. If God does not choose to inspire a prophet to foretell a thing, the prophet will remain in the dark as to that thing, just like all other men. There is no "must" about it.

So, if you want your question answered by LDS, and if you want the answer to be aligned with LDS doctrine (or at least perspective), please clarify why you have isolated one possible action of a prophet—which by the definition provided cannot be presumed, within the LDS view, to occur with any predictable or cyclical or quantitative frequency—from all other possible actions of a prophet, among which are stated those actions which are defined in LDS doctrine as primary purposes or responsibilities of a prophet.

I am merely asking about one aspect of the office of prophet, seer, and revelator. Other aspects of that office have been addressed in other threads here and I see no particular need to examine them, as well.

If you cannot answer my question, please tell me so and life will go on. On the other hand, don't attack me for asking an obvious question.

It is like finding a lawyer. If a lawyer advertises that he does litigation, among other services, it is certainly not out of line to determine what sorts of litigation he has handled and to ask for a curriculum vitae.

 

[CherubRam]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what was the last major event which came to pass which had been predicted by a Mormon prophet?

The Mormon prophet said that people lived on the moon and sun.

 

[RevelationTestament]

The Mormon prophet said that people lived on the moon and sun.

And how do you know they don't? Jesus said He was going to "the bowels of the earth" and that the dead would hear His voice, and that those who heard would live. So are there people living within the earth? Just where is the paradise that Jesus promised the crook on the cross?

 

[TasteForTruth]

I am merely asking about one aspect of the office of prophet, seer, and revelator. Other aspects of that office have been addressed in other threads here and I see no particular need to examine them, as well.

If you cannot answer my question, please tell me so and life will go on. On the other hand, don't attack me for asking an obvious question.

It is like finding a lawyer. If a lawyer advertises that he does litigation, among other services, it is certainly not out of line to determine what sorts of litigation he has handled and to ask for a curriculum vitae.

Well, you know me—it's either understood relative to the whole, or it's a straw man. So I am not the right person for this discussion.

 

[joneysd]

The Mormon prophet said that people lived on the moon and sun.

the mormon prophet said many things that never made sense or simply did not happen...

 

[Targaryen]

Well, you know me—it's either understood relative to the whole, or it's a straw man. So I am not the right person for this discussion.

I see no straw man argument. I see a legitimate question and a run around in effort to legitimately back away from the question for one of 2 reasons or both.

A) There hasn't been a recent prophecy from the Prophets that have panned out out.

B) that the Office of Prpohet in the LDS is akin these days to that of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church, issues of doctrine and dogma but no prophtical insights.

Now unless either or both of these guesses are true, then it would behoove you to actually address the question raised.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I see no straw man argument. I see a legitimate question and a run around in effort to legitimately back away from the question for one of 2 reasons or both.

A) There hasn't been a recent prophecy from the Prophets that have panned out out.

B) that the Office of Prpohet in the LDS is akin these days to that of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church, issues of doctrine and dogma but no prophtical insights.

Now unless either or both of these guesses are true, then it would behoove you to actually address the question raised.

I have not stated that it is an illegitimate question; there is nothing wrong with it. But the framework for discussion of the topic, as provided by bbbbbbb, leaves me personally disinterested in participation. This has nothing to do with your assumptions (A and B). In fact, if it has to do with anything at all, it is foresight. Sweet irony!

Tranlsation: The outcome of this thread is a foregone conclusion, as per the framework upon which it is built.

Translation of the translation: To participate in this thread further would be a waste of time.

 

[drstevej]

Translation of the translation: To participate in this thread further would be a waste of time.

Your Action Point?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I see no straw man argument. I see a legitimate question and a run around in effort to legitimately back away from the question for one of 2 reasons or both.

A) There hasn't been a recent prophecy from the Prophets that have panned out out.

B) that the Office of Prpohet in the LDS is akin these days to that of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church, issues of doctrine and dogma but no prophtical insights.

Now unless either or both of these guesses are true, then it would behoove you to actually address the question raised.

Thank you for reaffirming my question.

 

[Targaryen]

I have not stated that it is an illegitimate question; there is nothing wrong with it. But the framework for discussion of the topic, as provided by bbbbbbb, leaves me personally disinterested in participation. This has nothing to do with your assumptions (A and B). In fact, if it has to do with anything at all, it is foresight. Sweet irony!

Tranlsation: The outcome of this thread is a foregone conclusion, as per the framework upon which it is built.

Translation of the translation: To participate in this thread further would be a waste of time.

thank you then for providing the actual answer by your unwillingness to answer.

It would be both then, cause you cannot refute either one, can you?

It's pretty telling when given a legitimate question to answer that you can't or won't. heck you can't even deal intelligently with the question raised about Smith's own prophecy concerning the moon and sun.

I would assume the LDS was in the habit of talking about thier faith and trying to convince others of it's truthfulness. Instead I'm just seeing when pressed you cannot provide a concrete answer.

 

[TasteForTruth]

thank you then for providing the actual answer by your unwillingness to answer.

It would be both then, cause you cannot refute either one, can you?

It's pretty telling when given a legitimate question to answer that you can't or won't. heck you can't even deal intelligently with the question raised about Smith's own prophecy concerning the moon and sun.

I would assume the LDS was in the habit of talking about thier faith and trying to convince others of it's truthfulness. Instead I'm just seeing when pressed you cannot provide a concrete answer.

I hadn't previously realized that the truthfulness of the LDS religion hinged on Brigham Young's opinion about people living on the moon and sun. I'll try to be more concerned about defending his opinion in the future. I'll also try to be better about answering questions about my religion that isolate and pit pieces of it against the whole. And I guess, while I'm at it, I'll resist asking clarifying questions before responding to the type of questions already mentioned, so questioners can more easily find cause to continue in their preconceptions. I admit that I am weak in these areas. Hopefully, with time and effort, the way I discuss my religion will find favor in your eyes.

 

[Targaryen]

I hadn't previously realized that the truthfulness of the LDS religion hinged on Brigham Young's opinion about people living on the moon and sun. I'll try to be more concerned about defending his opinion in the future. I'll also try to be better about answering questions about my religion that isolate and pit pieces of it against the whole. And I guess, while I'm at it, I'll resist asking clarifying questions before responding to the type of questions already mentioned, so questioners can more easily find cause to continue in their preconceptions. I admit that I am weak in these areas. Hopefully, with time and effort, the way I discuss my religion will find favor in your eyes.

Preconceptions exist cause LDS and it's members have been notoriously silent when asked these sorts of questions in the past. That's why, but the same can be said by a lot of orthodox denominations in Christianity.

Your indignation towards the questions asked of you is noted, and doesn't do you any credit nor does it answer the questions others have. But I'm sure, you'll be indignant when pointed out this fact as well. but nothing like a vicious circle right?

I'd be more impressed with your willingness to discuss your religion if you:

A) Answered the questions asked and discarded the silly questions like the sun and moon one raised. I do know that was a trap question, but I would remind the one that brought it up, our own orthodox understanding of science and the moon and the sun at the time of Young was just as misleading.

B) Dealt with the issues in truth as far as your knowledge on the subject is. And if you ran into issues you cannot answer, it's perfectly fine to say I don't know.

C) Show a willingness to engage in debate rather move back into a position of defence. It's a tempting and comforting idea, we all seem to be apologist for our versions of the faith at one time or another, but pulling back like you have only shows a unwillingness to stand for the principles of your faith.

So, shall we try directing the question at hand back towards the OP or are you unwilling to deal in my three points?

 

[TasteForTruth]

Preconceptions exist cause LDS and it's members have been notoriously silent when asked these sorts of questions in the past. That's why, but the same can be said by a lot of orthodox denominations in Christianity.

Your indignation towards the questions asked of you is noted, and doesn't do you any credit nor does it answer the questions others have. But I'm sure, you'll be indignant when pointed out this fact as well. but nothing like a vicious circle right?

I'd be more impressed with your willingness to discuss your religion if you:

A) Answered the questions asked and discarded the silly questions like the sun and moon one raised. I do know that was a trap question, but I would remind the one that brought it up, our own orthodox understanding of science and the moon and the sun at the time of Young was just as misleading.

B) Dealt with the issues in truth as far as your knowledge on the subject is. And if you ran into issues you cannot answer, it's perfectly fine to say I don't know.

C) Show a willingness to engage in debate rather move back into a position of defence. It's a tempting and comforting idea, we all seem to be apologist for our versions of the faith at one time or another, but pulling back like you have only shows a unwillingness to stand for the principles of your faith.

So, shall we try directing the question at hand back towards the OP or are you unwilling to deal in my three points?

As the history of this forum shows, I am very willing to answer questions about my religion. There is no subject I won't discuss on equitable grounds. I have been consistent, however, in not engaging in "discussions" that I judge to be framed in any way on prejudice or caricature. Only a fool does not care about the framework in which he is being invited to discuss a topic, particularly when that topic is his religion.

It's very, very simple: Ask me a question and expect me to respond within the framework of your understanding of my religion, and you're likely to get silence, or a suggestion on how to dismantle the straw man. Ask me to answer a question framed within the context of LDS doctrine, and we can talk all day about any LDS subject, so long as mutual respect and courtesy attend.

 

[Ironhold]

The Mormon prophet said that people lived on the moon and sun.

Mind going into details on this one?

 

[Targaryen]

As the history of this forum shows, I am very willing to answer questions about my religion. There is no subject I won't discuss on equitable grounds. I have been consistent, however, in not engaging in "discussions" that I judge to be framed in any way on prejudice or caricature. Only a fool does not care about the framework in which he is being invited to discuss a topic, particularly when that topic is his religion.

It's very, very simple: Ask me a question and expect me to respond within the framework of your understanding of my religion, and you're likely to get silence, or a suggestion on how to dismantle the straw man. Ask me to answer a question framed within the context of LDS doctrine, and we can talk all day about any LDS subject, so long as mutual respect and courtesy attend.

I do believe the OP was a question based on equitable griunds, and it's still being unanswered.

The indignacy to answer is still noted.

How bout you move past that now and provide an actual answer?

 

[TasteForTruth]

I do believe the OP was a question based on equitable griunds, and it's still being unanswered.

And I initiated participation on equitable grounds in post #2, seeking to understand the context of the question in the OP. But when bbbbbbb's bias became clear in posts 5 and 6, the basis for equitable discussion was removed. My attempts to restore it—evidenced in my asking bbbbbbb in numerous follow-up posts to account for the double-standard he had introduced—were resisted, and remain resisted to this moment. You are pointing the finger of blame in the wrong direction.

The indignacy to answer is still noted.

Standing one's ground in the face of bias is not "indignant."

How bout you move past that now and provide an actual answer?

How about you stop goading me and honor my request to engage in a discussion that is free of prejudgment.

As time goes on, my own little prophecy is continually fulfilled:

To participate in this thread further would be a waste of time.

And such it has been.