Does The White Horse Prophecy Still Exist?

[CASteinman]

It has never been referred to as a prophesy. You cannot even provide a single reference where it is.

Well, I did show where it was referred to as a prophecy. But..again, do you really think that something MUST be labeled a prophecy for something to be a prophecy? Or can a prophecy not have such a label and still be a prophecy?

Edited July 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

No, I was referring to my argument that the idea of the constitution hanging from a thread is not a remarkable claim to make. the part about the elders supporting it was given in the vaguest of terms and not at all in a prophetic language.

Only one person claims it was vague -- and that person only claims it was vague in their memory -- many years later. Multiple other people had clearer memories of it. And it was prophetic and furthermore repeated as a prophecy. In General Conference.

You are simply ignoring things now.

[CASteinman]

You are making the claim that there is such a prophesy so I am asking you to produce it. I say there is not one because, well, there isn't one. You say there is one so show me the money.

I have produced the prophecy. I quoted it. You are ignoring that.

Ignoring what I am saying is not the same thing as me not saying it.

[CASteinman]

Time and experience has taught the brethren to be more careful about such pronouncements. This is an old conference talk, not the ensign, and not produced during the time of correlation. This article is attributing the title prophesy but when you look at the quotes being referenced, I do not see the word 'prophesy'. Show me the prophesy and we can discuss it further.

No, it is not an old Conference talk. Furthermore I listed both older and modern prophets who have referred to it.

You are ignoring what I am saying. That is not the same thing as making a new reality where I did not say it.

[CASteinman]

List of prophets who, after correlation was introduced and doctrinal scrutiny was followed with general addresses who mention the constitution hanging by a thread:

So you really believe that Harold B. Lee... the author of the Correlation program and Ezra Taft Benson who came later, were apostate in their beliefs.

That's your novel approach.

[thesometimesaint]

CASeiman:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[CASteinman]

CASeiman:

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Does it matter that Joseph Smith and many (I have it reported that it was at least 12) of the prophets that followed him have said that at some time in the future the Constitution would be in jeopardy, and it would be rescued by the Elders of Israel? Would that be sufficient to move this from a one-off, out of context or apostate notion to something that is pretty well attested?

Or is that also irrelevant? At what point do repeated comments from prophets since the days of Joseph Smith become important enough to say "Well maybe there's something to that"?

Edited July 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Freedom: It has never been referred to as a prophesy.

That is false. As I have shown. Simply ignoring what I have said and then denying I have shown it is not the same thing as me not having done it.

Freedom: You cannot even provide a single reference where it is.

That is false. As I have shown.

Freedom: You cannot even produce the original statement, all you have is second hand accounts.

Really. Are you seriously proposing that unless something was video taped, it did not happen?

Freedom: Only critics call it a prophesy and have been trying to extol it as such in an attempt to disparage the church.

I never knew Harold B. Lee to be a critic or to extol anything to disparage the church. You have a strange perception of the Presidents of the Church.

Freedom: Anything not found in the scriptures must be identified as a divine utterance otherwise all that a prophet ever says must be accepted as divine

Suddenly you bring up something new -- "divine utterance". This is called "Moving the Goalpost". And you bring up a test of divine utterance that is not established in LDS Doctrine. It is your own opinion. This is called "Stacking the Deck".

Freedom: Of course, this is all an argument from silence because this 'prophesy' is nowhere to be found.

Except in contemporary accounts when the prophecy was given and in multiple printed books and magazines in various languages. And in the talks of Presidents of the Church. But yeah.. other than that, its not found...

[Sevenbak]

Some words of wisdom from a more recent prophet:

"We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: Even this Nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the constitution is upon the brink of ruin this people will be the Staff up[on] which the Nation shall lean and they shall bear the constitution away from the very verge of destruction...

...I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—men and women who will subscribe to and abide by the principles of the Constitution."

The Constitution--A Heavenly Banner

President Ezra Taft Benson - September 16, 1986

[thesometimesaint]

CASteinman:

Does it matter that Joseph Smith and many (I have it reported that it was at least 12) of the prophets that followed him have said that at some time in the future the Constitution would be in jeopardy, and it would be rescued by the Elders of Israel? Would that be sufficient to move this from a one-off, out of context or apostate notion to something that is pretty well attested?

Or is that also irrelevant? At what point do repeated comments from prophets since the days of Joseph Smith become important enough to say "Well maybe there's something to that"?

It matters not a whit. When it is put before the general membership for their sustaining then we'll have a discussion on it. Further Jesus will put an end to all governments, including the US, before his return. That is LDS Doctrine. So why/how on Gods' green earth do the Elders of Israel stop Jesus from becoming our King?

[CASteinman]

It matters not a whit.

I did not realize you disagreed with the counsel of the Leadership of the Church that we should listen to the words of the Prophet and the Apostles as reported in the Official Organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But, even so, I was not talking about whether it mattered with regard to being declared as scripture. I was referring to the conversation previously engaged in where the prophecy by Joseph Smith was supposedly unreliable and not really a prophecy because it was not sufficiently attested to, and supposedly not called a prophecy.

I was not referring to whether it had been declared to be scripture.

Do you not recognize this difference in the subject matter at hand?

Don't put words' in people's mouths.

[thesometimesaint]

CASteinman:

Non sequitur.

Are you claiming that the Apostles don't believe that Jesus will be our king?

[CASteinman]

CASteinman:

Non sequitur.

Are you claiming that the Apostles don't believe that Jesus will be our king?

Irrelevant to the point of the discussion.

Are you trying to initiate some new topic about the millennium? Because this is not about the millennium.

It is possible you are confused on the topic. We were discussing the White Horse Prophecy. There was general agreement that it was unreliable and contested but that one part of it was well attested to.

That one part was that the "Constitution would hang by a thread" (or a hair) and further that the Church or the Members or the Elders of Zion would save it.

Freedom has declared against straight forward evidence that it has never been called a prophecy and that it is not well attested to.

I would say that quotation by multiple Presidents of the Church -- even calling it a prophecy -- is direct contradiction of his position.

This has nothing to do with whether the US Government actually will fall or whether Jesus will return or whether there will be a millennium.

It has to do with the status of this prediction made by Joseph Smith.

Hope that helps

Edited July 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[thesometimesaint]

CASteinman:

The so White Horse Prophecy is not accept by the Church as doctrine.

No time frame is given in the so called White Horse Prophecy. It literally could be over a hundred years ago or a thousand years from now.

Whether it is one or all parts of the so called White Horse Prophecy are in dispute is irrelevant. The so White Horse Prophecy is not accept by the Church as doctrine.

Whether it is one or all parts of the so called White Horse Prophecy are in dispute is irrelevant. The so White Horse Prophecy is not accept by the Church as doctrine.

Freedom can make his own case for why he believes what he does.

Whether one or all former or currant Apostles called it a prophecy is irrelevant. The so White Horse Prophecy is not accept by the Church as doctrine.

The US government is its constitution. Without which we cease to exist as a country.

Whatever JS personally believed is irrelevant to this discussion. The so called White Horse Prophecy is not accepted by the Church as doctrine.

Always happy to help.

Edited July 15, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[CASteinman]

The so White Horse Prophecy is not accept by the Church as doctrine.

Yes. The discussion is not about the White Horse Prophecy... despite the title of the thread. It was about a prophecy made by Joseph Smith that seems to have been incorporated into the White Horse Prophecy.

And despite that incorporation, the original prophecy -- it is argued here by several -- is valid. And Freedom is arguing that it is not. Freedom is even arguing that despite it being literally called a "prophecy" by a President of the Church -- it was never called a prophecy by anyone.

Now... you have interjected but your position is not clear. Did you object to the idea that the original prophecy -- apparently given by Joseph Smith multiple times and as discussed by many of the Lord's Prophets -- do you reject that it was accepted by Prophets and Apostles as a valid foretelling of the future? Do you reject that Joseph Smith said it or that it is a prophecy of some sort?

If so... upon what grounds that would hold up well to quotes from those Prophets, Apostles and the historians who have researched the matter closely?

Edited July 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[thesometimesaint]

CASteinman:

I'll let Freedom defend his own position.

My position is that the so called White Horse Prophecy is not nor has it ever been accepted by the Church as doctrine.

My personal opinion is that there has been many times when the US constitution has hung by a thread. We're still here, so I can only surmise that that string held. Whether it was the Elders of Israel that saved it is problematic.

[CASteinman]

CASteinman:

I'll let Freedom defend his own position.

My position is that the so called White Horse Prophecy is not nor has it ever been accepted by the Church as doctrine.

My personal opinion is that there has been many times when the US constitution has hung by a thread. We're still here, so I can only surmise that that string held. Whether it was the Elders of Israel that saved it is problematic.

Okay. I was not asking you to defend any one else's position -- I would consider such an expectation to be unreasonable.

As far as I can tell -- and I might not be reading it right -- there has never been a time when the Constitution hung by a thread the way this seems to have referred to it. But I can see where opinions might differ.

One thing is sure: There has never been a time when this was obvious and that it was also obvious that Elders in Israel saved it as foretold.

I notice that on the matters in the previous discussion you have decided not to comment further and that is fine.

Edited July 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[Alan]

I repeat, the White Horse Prophecy contains information about the future state of the nations which have since been fulfilled. Therefore, according to my understanding of prophecy, it has been proved to be genuine.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Alan

[thesometimesaint]

Alan:

I see no evidence for that. A very good case can be made that the US Civil War was the US constitution hanging by a thread. The Elders of Israel remained in Utah largely sitting out that war.

[Freedom]

Freedom: It has never been referred to as a prophesy.

That is false. As I have shown. Simply ignoring what I have said and then denying I have shown it is not the same thing as me not having done it.

Freedom: You cannot even provide a single reference where it is.

That is false. As I have shown.

Freedom: You cannot even produce the original statement, all you have is second hand accounts.

Really. Are you seriously proposing that unless something was video taped, it did not happen?

Freedom: Only critics call it a prophesy and have been trying to extol it as such in an attempt to disparage the church.

I never knew Harold B. Lee to be a critic or to extol anything to disparage the church. You have a strange perception of the Presidents of the Church.

Freedom: Anything not found in the scriptures must be identified as a divine utterance otherwise all that a prophet ever says must be accepted as divine

Suddenly you bring up something new -- "divine utterance". This is called "Moving the Goalpost". And you bring up a test of divine utterance that is not established in LDS Doctrine. It is your own opinion. This is called "Stacking the Deck".

Freedom: Of course, this is all an argument from silence because this 'prophesy' is nowhere to be found.

Except in contemporary accounts when the prophecy was given and in multiple printed books and magazines in various languages. And in the talks of Presidents of the Church. But yeah.. other than that, its not found...

I have read your quotes, and nobody refers to it as a prophesy. The early leaders often quoted Joseph but they quoted him on a lot of matters, and Joseph certainly was not reluctant to express his opinion. We will have to agree to disagree.

[CASteinman]

I have read your quotes, and nobody refers to it as a prophesy.

You must have missed post #40 where it is called a prophesy half a dozen times.

The "opinion" as you call it has been repeated by other Prophets as well.

[Freedom]

You must have missed post #40 where it is called a prophesy half a dozen times.

The "opinion" as you call it has been repeated by other Prophets as well.

The problem with the oft repeating of the word prophesy in your quote is that it was not made by the people being quoted, but rather being attributed to those speakers by the author of the article. The original quotes never state it as being a prophesy. He is simply assuming that these early leaders considered it a prophesy despite the fact that none of them give it that status. Prophesy is more than predicting a future event. I could produce a lot of quotes from prophets and apostles that refer to African Americans in the most derogatory manner, and many of these comments were made in general conference. Does this make these comments prophesy? I can show you firm decrees about evolution and many other topics, but this does not make them prophetic. It is just their opinions. The tense of the sentence does not determine its revelatory value.

I will adjust my position by stating that we cannot confirm whether it was a prophesy, but it appears quite certain that Joseph did made such a statement and many other church leaders picked it up and promoted the idea despite the fact that it was not presented as doctrine and that we can find no evidence that Joseph presented it as a revelation from God of future events. The magnitude of the statement, however, is insignificant because such an event of the Constitution hanging by a thread could be predicted by any person of average intelligence.

[CASteinman]

The problem with the oft repeating of the word prophesy in your quote is that it was not made by the people being quoted,

Absolutely 100% incorrect. It was a direct quote. HE is calling it a prophecy and I quoted him directly.

But look at what you have done. You have claimed repeatedly that no one ever called it a prophecy, I show you someone calling it a prophecy and then you say "Oh, well, it does not matter if someone called it a prophecy".

It is a disingenuous game you are playing. Sort of like "go find a rock". "no, not that rock, a different one".

The bottom line is that I have met every single one of your conditions and you keep moving the goalposts.

its not honest discussion. Why are you doing that? Why is it SO IMPORTANT to you to deny this thing? Is it somehow harmful to your testimony or image of the Church? What is the deal that you have to operate in this strange denial -- likening it to racism and calling it essentially stupid -- even though many Church Presidents have not thought so. Why?

Edited July 16, 2012 by CASteinman

[Alan]

Alan:

I see no evidence for that. A very good case can be made that the US Civil War was the US constitution hanging by a thread. The Elders of Israel remained in Utah largely sitting out that war.

The White Horse Prophecy does not simply talk about the civil war, far from it. It talks about the future role of Russia (at that time Russia was a nobody), the peaceful and co-operative relationship between Britain and France (Britain and France were bitter enemies at the time and had been for centuries) and their role in balancing the power between the US and Russia, and the fall of the Turkish Empire and the subsequent loss of it's possession of the Holy Land. These have all come to pass.

I believe it is recommended reading because it has been accurate to date, so the things it contains which are yet future are worth knowing.

[thesometimesaint]

Alan:

I have no problem with there being more than one occasion where the US constitution hung by a thread. In fact in an early post I said such. I was simply using that one as an example, not the only example.