No Prophet Is Perfect

[charity]

Okay, enough stalling -- answer the simple question:

On what grounds can we say that person who claims to be a prophet is in fact nothing of the sort?

I know a true prophet by the witness of the Spirit. If another person says he is a prophet and says God's word is something different than what the true prophet says, that person is an impostor.

By the way, the witness of the Spirit is more sure that Bertrand Russell's idea. After a day of unlikely events, a person could still argue coicidence.

[Ron Beron]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so I guess my minimum standards for believing in God would closely mimic the ones Bertrand Russell gave over half a century ago:

I would forever be plagued by doubts, though, because I'd have no way of knowing that my evidence for the existence of a particular conception of God, however compelling, wasn't merely an attempt by a evil superhuman intelligence to trick me into believing falsehoods.

Or we can assume you are schizophrenic.

[Cold Steel]

So what is it, guys? What makes the LDS apostles different from the zillions of other people who have claimed to be prophets chosen by some supernatural being?

You obviously haven't been hanging around here much or, if you have, you haven't been paying attention. First, the LDS apostles and prophets are based in the same foundations as the apostles and prophets sent of God. First, God will do NOTHING save He reveal it to His prophets (Amos 3:7). Thus, nearly every aspect of the latter day dispensation is based in biblical prophecy. Second, the LDS apostles and prophets are established as true by witnesses. Not only did the Book of Mormon have numerous witnesses, so did the appearance of Elijah, Moses, Elias and Christ. So did the restoration of the priesthood, as well as the vision of the Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms and the 1978 revelation on priesthood, which was witnessed by members of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

Third, the LDS church is most closely associated with the organization and philosophies of the ancient Christian church. As the ancient church introduced many new concepts that had been lost such as the Trinity, the fact that man could become as God, that Jesus was part of the Trinity and was the Creator of the world, and the doctrine of the resurrection. All of this struck the religious Jews of Jesus' time as rank blasphemies. The LDS church also introduced doctrines that had been lost, such as the true nature of the Trinity, the fact that man could become as God, and that Jesus was a member of the Godhead, all of which were viewed as rank blasphemies/heresies by the religious Christians in Joseph Smith's day.

The parallels between the ancient Christian church and the modern Restoration are almost precisely the same. And if the Internet had existed in the days of Pontius Pilate, you can bet that there would be just as many anti-Christian sites as there are anti-Mormon sites today.

Again, the LDS church finds its fulfillment in biblical prophecy, witnesses, and the overall organization and philosophy (including the hallmark of continuing revelation). Both organizations were known for their spiritual manifestations, such as the healing of the sick, the visitation of angels, the raising of the dead and the casting out of devils.

Other than those, we really don't have anything going for us at all.

[urroner]

Well, unless I missed it, I didn't see an answer to this question. I just find it interesting that the critics of the Church are so quick to find fault with modern day prophets, but they fail to hold ancient prophets and apostles to the same standard.

Okay, I'll throw this question open to anybody who is non-Mormon and believes the Bible to be the word of God? Can any of you please answer this simple question. I think this question is just as great and just as revealing as bach's question.

[seriously honestly]

Paul said even an Apostle could teach another gospel.(Galatians 1:8,9)

I'm not sure what you are getting at with that, but Paul said that if anyone (angel or man) preached another gospel to let them be accursed

[Thinking]

But then again, you failed to answer my question roman. What follies and weaknesses did [the] ancient apostles and prophets have and how did they compare to those of Joseph Smith?

Well, unless I missed it, I didn't see an answer to this question. I just find it interesting that the critics of the Church are so quick to find fault with modern day prophets, but they fail to hold ancient prophets and apostles to the same standard.

Okay, I'll throw this question open to anybody who is non-Mormon and believes the Bible to be the word of God? Can any of you please answer this simple question. I think this question is just as great and just as revealing as bach's question.

In order to make the comparison, the apologists need to acknowledge a specific mistake that one of the LDS prophets made. It also needs to be a mistake that the critics often use to discredit that prophet. Then we can make a comparison.

[Thinking]

We are talking about being "perfect" werent we? Doesnt matter what kind of imperfection is at stake, imperfection is still imperfection. in other words---Not Perfect.

If the kind of imperfection doesn't matter then why do you believe in the three degrees of glory? That belief alone indicates that you believe that there are different levels of imperfection.

And according to whom was polygamy a misstake? in the bible God ordered several times for certain men to have sevearl concubines...

CFR. Not the D&C. Where in the OT does it say that God ordered anyone to have multiple wives or concubines?

Why is it acceptable in the bible, then all of a sudden a great big crime in modern revealation?

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates; in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

1835 D&C 101:4 "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

[urroner]

In order to make the comparison, the apologists need to acknowledge a specific mistake that one of the LDS prophets made. It also needs to be a mistake that the critics often use to discredit that prophet. Then we can make a comparison.

So the critic, if I understand you correctly, gets a free pass on an argument from silence in their attempt to hoist a possible double standard.

[Zakuska]

CFR. Not the D&C. Where in the OT does it say that God ordered anyone to have multiple wives or concubines?

2 Sam 12

8 And I gave thee thy masterâ??s house, and thy masterâ??s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

[Hammer]

In many of the threads on the board a critic will write something like, "Joseph Smith can't be a prophet because he did X!" An apologist then responds with something like, "No prophet is perfect. After all he is just a man."

Yet Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. Certainly He is encouraging us to pay attention to what a professed prophet says and does. In light of Christ's warnings and the fact that no prophet is perfect, I ask the following question: What level of "not perfect" should be expected of a prophet?

All aspects of the leaders should be considered through the Lord. Can you truly judge righteously without the Lord at hand? I think not.

Let the Lord remove the false prophet.

[LifeOnaPlate]

1835 D&C 101:4 "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

Yeesh, care to give any context or background to this verse, who it was written by, when, why, etc? Bushman treats it in RSR. It has been treated elsewhere. What is your point in bringing it up, and what does it prove?

[Anijen]

Lets see Peter denied the Savior not once but three times, er, I guess that could be called a doctrinal issue.

Moses Killed a man hmmm that also sounds like we could throw him out of the prophet category.

Uh, David wow adultery and the hand in killing Uriah guess he isn't one either.

Hosea married a slut wow he should have had known better.

Abraham advocated lying and oh what slept with his daughters I guess he is a goner.

Jacob a polygamous say it isn't so.

The list could go on and on and even though there is righteous justification for the above (except for David, and the case with Abraham not knowing etc) it would follow the golden rule to apply it to Joseph Smith too, or are ya not Christian enough?

[Thinking]

2 Sam 12

8

And I gave thee thy masterâ??s house, and thy masterâ??s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Does gave mean ordered?

As I have pointed out in other threads, while there does appear to be polygamy in the OT, I have not seen a scripture in the OT which includes it as part of the gospel.

If you read this verse in context, the Lord is rebuking David.

2 Samuel 12

1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor manâ??s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

5 And Davidâ??s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:

6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I aanointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy masterâ??s house, and thy masterâ??s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou adespised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast bkilled cUriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his dwife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

This kind of sounds like Henry Jacobs doesn't it?

[Zakuska]

Yes God is rebuking David for lusting and killing... after God had already given him 10 women. Like 10 virgins wasn't enough...

And like sooo many other I think you are misinterpreting D&C 132...

What was it that the Lord commanded?

The Lord commanded "multiply and replenish the earth"... Sarah was barren... so what was the law?

To give your handmaid to your husband and let her be a seragate mother for you. So you could have children.

With the medical technology of our day, people can obey the command with out having to do the law.

Blessing a barren woman with a child of her own isn't something God does for a sinner.

[Thinking]

1835 D&C 101:4 "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

Yeesh, care to give any context or background to this verse, who it was written by, when, why, etc? Bushman treats it in RSR. It has been treated elsewhere. What is your point in bringing it up, and what does it prove?

The Church publicly denied the practice of polygamy. This verse was used several times in the Times & Seasons to prove that the Church did not practice polygamy. Public denial, secret practice...kind of sounds like a secret combination doesn't it?

[LifeOnaPlate]

1835 D&C 101:4 "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

The Church publicly denied the practice of polygamy. This verse was used several times in the Times & Seasons to prove that the Church did not practice polygamy. Public denial, secret practice...kind of sounds like a secret combination doesn't it?

First, the Church denied the practice of polygamy. Joesph Smith and others practicing plural marriage do not constitute the Church. Second, who wrote that section, when, and what led to it being written?

Your context remains severely lacking.

[Thinking]

And like sooo many other I think you are misinterpreting D&C 132...

What was it that the Lord commanded?

The Lord commanded "multiply and replenish the earth"... Sarah was barren... so what was the law?

I thought we were talking about David.

The Lord commanded "multiply and replenish the earth"... Sarah was barren... so what was the law?

To give your handmaid to your husband and let her be a seragate mother for you. So you could have children.

With the medical technology of our day, people can obey the command with out having to do the law.

Blessing a barren woman with a child of her own isn't something God does for a sinner.

Sarah wasn't a sinner? I believe she was a repentant sinner.

Genesis 16:5 My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.

Certainly the Lord will forgive a truly repentant sinner.

[Thinking]

First, the Church denied the practice of polygamy. Joesph Smith and others practicing plural marriage do not constitute the Church.

Second, who wrote that section, when, and what led to it being written?

Why does it matter? It was quoted so many times times that it's obvious that it wasn't a hidden verse.

Your context remains severely lacking.

Ahhh! Spoken like a true disciple of Pahoran.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Why does it matter? It was quoted so many times times that it's obvious that it wasn't a hidden verse.

Ahhh! Spoken like a true disciple of Pahoran.

How does Joseph Smith practicing plural marriage lead to your belief that the Church itself at that time practiced plural marriage? Or even ultimately that the Church as a whole should or would practice it even later?

Quoted so many times? CFR?

Who wrote it means a great deal. I am not even sure you know, else you wouldn't be avoiding the point.

[Thinking]

How does Joseph Smith practicing plural marriage lead to your belief that the Church itself at that time practiced plural marriage? Or even ultimately that the Church as a whole should or would practice it even later?

So because the whole church was not practicing plural marriage, it was OK for JS and others to do it in secret?

Quoted so many times? CFR?

Here's one, but it's my favorite. There are more, but I don't wnat to take up too much space.

October 1, 1842 (Vol. III No. 23)

All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents and masters who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.

We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and shew [show] that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend Origen Bachelor, are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despise. In support of this position, we present the following certificates:-

We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did.

S. Bennett, N. K. Whitney,

George Miller, Albert Pettey,

Alpheus Cutler, Elias Higbee,

Reynolds Cahoon, John Taylor,

Wilson Law, E. Robinson,

W. Woodruff, Aaron Johnson.

We the undersigned members of the ladies' relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised [practiced] in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a disclosure of his own make.

Emma Smith, President,

Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Counsellor,

Sarah M. Cleveland, Counsellor,

Eliza R. Snow, Secretary,

Mary C. Miller, Catharine Pettey,

Lois Cutler, Sarah Higbee,

Thirza Cahoon, Phebe Woodruff

Ann Hunter, Leonora Taylor,

Jane Law, Sarah Hillman,

Sophia R. Marks, Rosannah Marks,

Polly Z. Johnson, Angeline Robinson,

Abigail Works.

Who wrote it means a great deal. I am not even sure you know, else you wouldn't be avoiding the point.

According to the preface of the 1835 D&C, these "leading items of religion" were prepared by, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and F.G. Williams. At the end of the book there is the account of the 1835 D&C being unanimously accepted as scripture at a special general assembly.

[LifeOnaPlate]

According to the preface of the 1835 D&C, these "leading items of religion" were prepared by, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and F.G. Williams. At the end of the book there is the account of the 1835 D&C being unanimously accepted as scripture at a special general assembly.

Have you, by chance, checked out Bushman's RSR?

[Thinking]

Have you, by chance, checked out Bushman's RSR?

No.

[William James]

In many of the threads on the board a critic will write something like, "Joseph Smith can't be a prophet because he did X!" An apologist then responds with something like, "No prophet is perfect. After all he is just a man."

Yet Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. Certainly He is encouraging us to pay attention to what a professed prophet says and does. In light of Christ's warnings and the fact that no prophet is perfect, I ask the following question: What level of "not perfect" should be expected of a prophet?

Thinking, great question! Here is my view.

True, no prophet will ever be perfect. But if we are going to lay off on the criticism of prophets for their sins/mistakes, then we should apply the same principal of leniency towards ordinary people. The problem I see in the church today is that prophets are practically deified to the point that ordinary people feel tremendous guilt about being ordinary. We build up a culture in the church of not sharing our individual failings with anyone other than our priesthood leaders. The result is that everyone imagines that they are much worse than the rest of the group; they are aware of their own sins but not everyone else's. This in turn feeds the cult of quasi-deification of church leaders, whose sins are practically only revealed anytime a major scandal breaks and someone has to be excommunicated. This is one reason why I detest the system of discussing alleged sexual sins like masturbation only with priesthood leaders (and when applicable, a spouse or parent). It feeds the view that it is abnormal and sinful. I have to wonder how the church's view on that subject would change if indisputable evidence could be produced showing the true statistics about how many prophets, and for that matter, current church leaders, engage/d in masturbation and private sexual fantasies about people other than their spouses.

When I think on Joseph Smith, I see a man of God. And I see a man with many of the same characteristics I have. I have no problem with that at all. But we can't have our cake and eat it too. If we're going to excuse a prophet's shortcomings on the ground that he is a far-from-perfect man, then let's be consistent and not pretend that our leaders are unrealistically righteous.

[Thinking]

So the critic, if I understand you correctly, gets a free pass on an argument from silence in their attempt to hoist a possible double standard.

No. It's just that when a critic points out what he thinks is a mistake (polyandry, for example), the apologist will deny it's a mistake by saying something like "JS didn't have sex with other men's wives. Those were sealings not marriages. It's part of the Law of Adoption."

If we can't agree on a mistake, then we can't make a real comparison.

[Oracle]

In many of the threads on the board a critic will write something like, "Joseph Smith can't be a prophet because he did X!" An apologist then responds with something like, "No prophet is perfect. After all he is just a man."

Yet Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. Certainly He is encouraging us to pay attention to what a professed prophet says and does. In light of Christ's warnings and the fact that no prophet is perfect, I ask the following question: What level of "not perfect" should be expected of a prophet?

This is a great question, Thinking. As someone who has spent quite a bit of time with people who have fallen away from the church after bumping into the follies of Joseph Smith the prophet, I think that if we could get some clarity on this we would go a long way in understanding each other.

I do not expect any man to be perfect. I do expect, however, to have a person with character credibility in order for me to establish trust in him. It's kind of like the boy who cries wolf. Or the reasoning behind why courts of law use character witnesses to help the jury understand what sort of person a defendant might be. We make judgments like this every day in determining who or what we believe. These judgments are critical and are the crux of the issue with me when it comes to the character of Joseph Smith. Or any other so-called prophet. Can we trust a person who has a proven track record of telling falsehoods? I'm not talking about little white lies. I'm talking about doozies.

With Joseph Smith, if one is truly trying to understand and learn about him in their own quest for a testimony...they are going to bump into several character issues that impede trust. And one polygamy deceit builds onto a Book of Abraham falsehood, which builds onto a peepstoning mess and after so many of these character issues one is hardpressed to believe anything authentic came from Joseph's mouth.