False Prophecies?

[Carborendum]

So are you trying to say 'the bible has false prophecies therefore it's ok for JS to have made one'?

Notice what just happened? He doesn't admit the errors in the Bible when they clearly fail the same tests by the same standards. He doesn't admit that his standard is hypocritical or erroneous. He simply deflects and continues down the worn out line of JS is a false prophet.

Well, if this is the standard by which to judge, then Jesus Christ himself is a false prophet. I'm not prepared to say that. So, I'm going to believe this is not the appropriate test (alone) to apply.

[Mark Beesley]

I am well already fully convinced JS was a false prophet (for the two reasons I mentioned in my OP) and I have no doubt people here have heard about D&C 84. I am however relatively new to Mormonism and so wanted to know how Mormons who believe JS was a true prophet do not see D&C 84 as a false prophecy.

So far the main response(e have been a couple of ok explainations) has been an attack against Biblical prophecies rather then an explaination of why the prophecy in question is actually true-I was expecting you guys to have a good explaination rather than just changing the subject.

Thank you for being candid about your intent. You have been given two very good and plausible explanations about why Section 84 does not constitute a false prophecy:

1. It was not so much a prophecy as a promise of a temple if the Saints were faithful; and

2. The term generation has a much broader meaning when used by the Lord than simply some finite passage of time.

Now you know why we are not compelled to see Section 84 as a false prophecy. Seems you don't need any further information.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Flyonthewall]

1 ^aJudge not, that ye be not ^bjudged.

2 For with what ^ajudgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what ^bmeasure ye mete, it shall be ^cmeasured to you again.

3 ^aAnd why beholdest thou the ^bmote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the ^cbeam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou ^ahypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Dj has used judgement to declare Joseph Smith a false prophet.

The very same yardstick he has used to measure Joseph, has been used upon others he has deemed true prophets and they have failed the very same test.

While seeing the mote in the eyes of LDS, he has ignored the beam in his own.

He so graciously offers to pull the mote out of our eyes...

I wonder what the Lord thinks of those that do that....?

[djholmess]

Thank you for being candid about your intent. You have been given two very good and plausible explanations about why Section 84 does not constitute a false prophecy:

1. It was not so much a prophecy as a promise of a temple if the Saints were faithful; and

2. The term generation has a much broader meaning when used by the Lord than simply some finite passage of time.

Now you know why we are not compelled to see Section 84 as a false prophecy. Seems you don't need any further information.

Yes I am aware of those two responses. However when I asked further questions about them both no one was able to actually show me why they think this about this prophecie.

E.g.

1. I asked where a condition upon faithfulness is presented in the prophecy...a plain reading would seem to indicate that it is something Jesus is saying will happen, not something that might happen if people are faithful. What reason from within the prophecy itself indicates it is conditional?

2. I presented evidence that LDS Apostles of the time understood the prophecy to apply directly to their generation, I asked why am I to take the word of posters here over past leaders of your church? So far the only response I have is 'I don't care'

To everyone else; I don't understand how quoting a list of single verses from larger biblical prophecies in anyway provides a explaination about JS prophecy we are discussing. For a start surely a serious discussion would take one at a time rather than jumping all over the place-I haven't replied because no serious discussion of any single one was presented. Secondly none of the prophecies presented are similar to JS one, JS clearly described something that would happen and gave a timeframe within which it would happen. The biblical ones presented here do not resemble this JS prophecy in this way.

If the two reasons given above by Mark are the best reasons you have and there is no further response to my two queries then I have indeed learnt all I can from this discussion.

[djholmess]

DJ,

Did you miss this post? If you are at all serious you will study what Kevin has to say.

What exactly am I supposed to study in his response? I followed his link to the keys but it was only a short article...did I miss something?

[djholmess]

Notice what just happened? He doesn't admit the errors in the Bible when they clearly fail the same tests by the same standards. He doesn't admit that his standard is hypocritical or erroneous. He simply deflects and continues down the worn out line of JS is a false prophet.

Well, if this is the standard by which to judge, then Jesus Christ himself is a false prophet. I'm not prepared to say that. So, I'm going to believe this is not the appropriate test (alone) to apply.

I think you have misunderstood the intention of my thread. I already stated that for other reasons I believe JS to be a false prophet, false or true i do not see prophecies as the deciding factor. Therefore my interest is not in arguing or proving JS to be false.

What I did is present a biblical standard of a test for a false prophet and ask why those who believe JS was a true prophet think he met this standard.

If your answer is that you reject the standard then that's fine as your answer but I'm not interested in such an answer. Similarily I'm not interested in people who reject that standard as a test of biblical prophecies, 'the bible is wrong so therefore JS can be wrong' is not the response I'm looking for. Hence why I haven't responded.

I was wanting to understand how people who think JS prophecies must all be true understand D&C 84.

[MormonMason]

I have a few moments so will comment. The outcomes of some prophecies can be altered, postponed, transferred, or otherwise, by later circumstances that occur after the prophecy. The Bible is filled with such examples but many hold those to be OK while attacking the prophecies of Joseph Smith for doing the very same that the Bible does.

As to Section 84:3-5, certain portions were altered by extenuating circumstances. One of the main things that people fail to consider is that the Doctrine and Covenants has a historical context and a spiritual context with and without its pages. At the time Section 84 was given the saints were living as they should the best that they knew how. They were explicitly told to keep their mouths shut concerning what the Lord intended for that land and that everything was riding on the fact that they were to live the law of consecration in order to be worthy to live on that land without interference. The saints later failed on both counts.

They were warned that their failure to live up to their covenants would result in their expulsion from the land and scattering. They were told to take things slowly and to build the city up gradually. Instead, they failed to live consecration, they bragged about the fact that the Lord was going to give them that land, and many people rushed down there faster than intended, causing fears among the locals regarding the Mormons taking their land from them by force of numbers, and thereby causing resentment to arise.

But, the Lord committed himself to a house of the Lord being built that would have a cloud rest upon it, being the glory of the Lord. Due to circumstances, that temple in verse 5 became the Kirtland Temple, where such events were recorded at the end of dedication proceedings in 1836. Verse 4 in part got postponed until such time as the saints get themselves into line. Verse 3 was fulfilled. The city was being built. The temple lot already had been dedicated. But, the saints failed to live up to the requirements for staying there, a number of saints bragged about what the Lord was going to do with that land, and the people of the area got angry enough to push the saints out.

They had been warned in verses 43-44 to beware concerning themselves, they were condemned for their failure to take seriously the Book of Mormon in verses 54-57, that a scourge and judgment was being prepared for the saints if they didn't get into line soon (verse 58), and the Lord tells them that they would not be allowed to pollute his holy land (verse 59). They had ample warning in even the rest of Section 84, which gives the clear implication that the Lord would not allow them to remain there and fulfill the first verses of that revelation if they did not get into line and soon. History shows what happened afterward, fully in line with the warnings.

You critics need to take the context of this section with that of other sections that preceded this one and succeeded this one. Failing that, you are just taking the Doctrine and Covenants out of its fuller context. In that fuller context, the Lord did with this section as he did with other prophecies in the Bible where they were postponed, transferred to replacement individuals, and so forth.

I suggest a careful reading of the entire Doctrine and Covenants, including all the revelations given the very next year after Section 84. It would not hurt to carefully read a few before it as well, such as 82:10 and 58:1-7, 58:30-34, 58:44-45, 58:47-52, 58:56.

Rejecting the newer revelations while accepting the older revelations in the Bible when they do the very same things, is a double standard at best.

Edited September 6, 2012 by MormonMason

[djholmess]

I have a few moments so will comment. The outcomes of some prophecies can be altered, postponed, transferred, or otherwise, by later circumstances that occur after the prophecy. The Bible is filled with such examples but many hold those to be OK while attacking the prophecies of Joseph Smith for doing the very same that the Bible does.

As to Section 84:3-5, certain portions were altered by extenuating circumstances. One of the main things that people fail to consider is that the Doctrine and Covenants has a historical context and a spiritual context with and without its pages. At the time Section 84 was given the saints were living as they should the best that they knew how. They were explicitly told to keep their mouths shut concerning what the Lord intended for that land and that everything was riding on the fact that they were to live the law of consecration in order to be worthy to live on that land without interference. The saints later failed on both counts.

They were warned that their failure to live up to their covenants would result in their expulsion from the land and scattering. They were told to take things slowly and to build the city up gradually. Instead, they failed to live consecration, they bragged about the fact that the Lord was going to give them that land, and many people rushed down there faster than intended, causing fears among the locals regarding the Mormons taking their land from them by force of numbers, and thereby causing resentment to arise.

But, the Lord committed himself to a house of the Lord being built that would have a cloud rest upon it, being the glory of the Lord. Due to circumstances, that temple in verse 5 became the Kirtland Temple, where such events were recorded at the end of dedication proceedings in 1836. Verse 4 in part got postponed until such time as the saints get themselves into line. Verse 3 was fulfilled. The city was being built. The temple lot already had been dedicated. But, the saints failed to live up to the requirements for staying there, a number of saints bragged about what the Lord was going to do with that land, and the people of the area got angry enough to push the saints out.

They had been warned in verses 43-44 to beware concerning themselves, they were condemned for their failure to take seriously the Book of Mormon in verses 54-57, that a scourge and judgment was being prepared for the saints if they didn't get into line soon (verse 58), and the Lord tells them that they would not be allowed to pollute his holy land (verse 59). They had ample warning in even the rest of Section 84, which gives the clear implication that the Lord would not allow them to remain there and fulfill the first verses of that revelation if they did not get into line and soon. History shows what happened afterward, fully in line with the warnings.

You critics need to take the context of this section with that of other sections that preceded this one and succeeded this one. Failing that, you are just taking the Doctrine and Covenants out of its fuller context. In that fuller context, the Lord did with this section as he did with other prophecies in the Bible where they were postponed, transferred to replacement individuals, and so forth.

I suggest a careful reading of the entire Doctrine and Covenants, including all the revelations given the very next year after Section 84. It would not hurt to carefully read a few before it as well, such as 82:10 and 58:1-7, 58:30-34, 58:44-45, 58:47-52, 58:56.

Rejecting the newer revelations while accepting the older revelations in the Bible when they do the very same things, is a double standard at best.

Thank you for your reasoned response. May I ask your opinion on the two quotes from LDS apostles who were part of JS's generation who seemed to 1) think then entire prophecy was a whole yet to be fulfilled and 2) that it was yet to be fulfilled in their generation. Did they simply misunderstand the prophecy? They two quotes are on page 1 of this thread.

What I'm getting at here is why is your more valid than LDS Apostles e.g. About the Kirkland temple fulfilling the prophecy vs the Apostles who actually seem to understand the prophecy to be referring to a temple being built on the temple lot mentioned in the prophecy within their generation?

[wayfarer]

deleted double post

Edited September 6, 2012 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

I am well already fully convinced JS was a false prophet

"And that is why you fail." - yoda.

One does not begin a discussion or an investigation into truth with a preconceived notion of being convinced. It's not a valid approach for either side of a discussion.

but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

1 Cor 13:8-12

I thank god for Joseph Smith, for doing precisely what Paul did. Jewish Christianity did not fully understand the presence of Christ in active, ongoing revelation. Paul completely upset the applecart, and established a living view of the Christ. He did not receive his gospel from any man but by Revelation of Jesus Christ.

You as a Christian praise the bible as the Word of God, thinking that nothing can go beyond. The Word of god is not the bible, despite what both Christians and Mormons say. The Word of God is the living Christ, who reveals himself to mankind and is the living and present "I AM". Paul and Joseph received revelation, at least according to their own reputation and accounts. Was Paul perfect? no. Was Joseph perfect? no. If we accept Paul, having a revelation out of time from the original apostles, that he was not an original witness to Christ, but rather, through revelation after the ascension, then what event closed the heavens and prevents Joseph from receiving revelation as well?

Do you think that any revelation given by prophets in scripture was word-for-word perfect? Think again. Do you think the scriptures are anything other than the inspired opinions of men? think again. Do you think that the Bible is the seal of the prophets, that there is no more need for scriptural revelation? Think again. A living and present God in Christ does not set the ship adrift and then says 'you have all you need', but rather, actively reveals his will. A biblical stance that there is no scripture besides the bible, is a distinctly unbiblical position to take.

The point of this thread, from the first response to your original post, was to point out the Mole-Eye challenge: you cannot indict Joseph for a 'failed prophecy' by a biblical standard, because the bible contains numerous failed prophecies. If I measure Joseph by the 'biblical standard' then Joseph both has 'true prophecies', as pointed out here, and ones that did not materialize. If you are trying to point out that a time-bound prophecy makes his failure unique, then you have just rejected the Lord Jesus Christ, for he did the same. Is that your intent? Are you as a Christian rejecting Jesus Christ?

See how silly this can get? "My prophet is better than your prophet". I've even heard from one sect, "My god is better than your god." Silly, silly arguments.

And why do these arguments fail? because each side starts from the position, as you have, that they are already convinced of the "truth" of their position. Since you're already convinced, I realize that i'm simply wasting my time here posting this. truly. But hope springs eternal, that maybe you can come to a reasonable position of possibilities, as Paul did: We "beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."

I do not know that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but I have an abiding faith that he was, in spite of prodigious imperfections. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge, but if we have faith, we hope for things that are not seen, which are true. My witness is that through the teachings and prophecies of Joseph Smith, especially the Book of Mormon, I have had a personal experience where I was saved by the grace of Christ. a personal, powerful experience, that renews itself every day as I follow that path. I'm not just 'bearing my testimony' here - that's not my point. I'm witnessing to you, fully and completely in an evangelical, bible believing Christian sense, that I have been saved by the grace of Jesus Christ.

Accepting that Joseph Smith may have been a prophet, instead of outright rejection, does not dimish the witness of salvation in Christ, but rather, provides a tangible means for coming to Christ. It may not be for everyone in this life, but it works very well for those who have that witness. Rather than rejecting this message, why can we not explore, together, how the presence of the Christ as an active participant in society through a living prophet can edify, uplift, and fulful what Paul taught in Galatians 1 as the way to receive truth?

A hand of fellowship is open to you: do not reject it because you've already made up your mind.

[MormonMason]

It seems like that would be quite a stretch of the text to say the temple mentioned in verse 4 as being “reared in this generation” is different to the house of the Lord in verse 5 which “this generation shall not pass away” until it was built. In both verses we have something being built/reared, we have a specific generation who will be alive when it is done and the terms ‘temple’ and ‘house of the lord’ are already closely connected terms.

It would also ignore the ‘for’ at the beginning of verse 5 which provides a clear grammatical connection between verses 4 and 5.

Actually I don’t think I am, can you show me a instance where the term “this generation” is used in biblical prophecies where it doesn’t mean something like “this generation alive today”?

I have also found a couple of quotes from church leaders (apostles) from that generation that clearly understood the prophecy to refer to their generation:

The natural and simple face value reading of D&C 84:1-5 would suggest that Smith was making a prophecy that the temple would be constructed within the generation that was alive at the time of his prophecy. The two above quotes show that even after moving west the LDS apostles who were part of that generation seen the promise as a promise made to their specific generation that God was yet going to fulfil before they died.

Is there any evidence that other members of the generation that received the prophecy did not actually think it applied to them?

For starters, take a careful look at Orson Pratt's later remarks concerning this, the requirements, and the caveats, in Journal of DIscourses 17:111-113.

Let me offer some helpful hints for using the Journal of Discourses for you as well:

1. You must be careful when using the Journal of Discourses in looking at everything a person has to say in them.
   
2. You must understand that the Journal of Discourses is not and never has been an official LDS Church publication. It served a useful purpose but it was not officially published by the Church.
   
3. The Journal of Discourses does not accurately preserve all the words of the various speakers in every case. Words and phrases are omitted and the like. This you can see when comparing talks in the Discourses with those in the official records. The editors tried their best but sometimes failed. And, there are various printing errors as well.
   
4. The Journal of Discourses is not on par with the official Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price).
   
5. The Journal of Discourses does not contain 100% truth. In point of fact, there are texts containing false doctrine in them. One case in point is Amasa Lyman, who was excommunicated for what he taught in the Journal of Discourses and elsewhere. His words still are contained in the Journal of DIscourses--both true and false.
   

Now, Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses offers a piece of advice in determining what is true and what is and is not the doctrine of the Church. See Journal of Discourses 9:91-92. The gist of it is that whenever you see the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve unanimous in their declaration on any principle, you may set that down as true. In other words, if they are not in agreement on any given principle, you may know it is not necessarily true and that it is not doctrine of the Church. This is in agreement with the principle taught in Doctrine and Covenants 102, and elsewhere.

From my own view, there will one day be a temple complex built in that place. I have no doubt of that. I think that it is inevitable. The saints must live the law of the Celestial kingdom before we can do that, however. Either we will do it willingly or the Lord will cause events to occur that will force us into it. That said, the Lord has the right to adjust things as he sees fit, regardless of our thoughts. A perfect example of that can be seen in his instruction in Zechariah 6:15. Now, ask yourself what would have happened had the people of Israel not obeyed?

It is the same thing with the Doctrine and Covenants. Everything was predicated on not polluting his holy land and on keeping the commandments. The fuller context makes that very clear. But, even with this, both we and the General Authorities have a right to their and our own opinions, wrong or right, whether made with understanding of the scriptures and their fuller context or not. The key is in whether or not these opinions are in accord with the official Standard Works. Even various General Authorities themselves have said that we can discard any of their words not in accordance with these.

Edited September 7, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

Thank you for your reasoned response. May I ask your opinion on the two quotes from LDS apostles who were part of JS's generation who seemed to 1) think then entire prophecy was a whole yet to be fulfilled and 2) that it was yet to be fulfilled in their generation. Did they simply misunderstand the prophecy? They two quotes are on page 1 of this thread.

What I'm getting at here is why is your more valid than LDS Apostles e.g. About the Kirkland temple fulfilling the prophecy vs the Apostles who actually seem to understand the prophecy to be referring to a temple being built on the temple lot mentioned in the prophecy within their generation?

I'd have to take a look at the books and find out. I will have to look through them and find out what they had to say but that will take some time. In the meantime, what I said directly above this post still is applicable. By the way, have you looked carefully at the Doctrine and Covenants texts that form the context that I cited above? Please do, if not.

Edited September 7, 2012 by MormonMason

[Carborendum]

I think you have misunderstood the intention of my thread.

Actually, I question whether *you* understood the intent of your thread. Here's why.

...false or true i do not see prophecies as the deciding factor. Therefore my interest is not in arguing or proving JS to be false.

OK, so you're *not* trying to decide whether he was a false prophet. So, you asked the question clearly

I was wanting to understand how people who think JS prophecies must all be true understand D&C 84.

Remember, you were *not* trying to prove JS is a false prophet. So you posted:

What I did is present a biblical standard of a test for a false prophet and ask why those who believe JS was a true prophet think he met this standard.

So that is *not* what you are looking for. Of course not. That is why you provided the standard in the first place.

If your answer is that you reject the standard ... I'm not interested in such an answer... Hence why I haven't responded.

In other words, you ask why we believe he met this standard, but don't accept an answer of "I don't think the standard even applies".

In fact, you'll accept no other answer than the one you have presupposed in your mind to be the only *acceptable* answer:

"You're right. Joseph Smith was a false prophet. I'll repent right away and join you in bringing down the Mormon Church from this day forward."

Sarcasm aside, how can you contradict yourself in your own posts, read about the contradiction of this principle in the Bible itself, and continue down this path? The literal answer to your post has already been given in the very first response in this thread (from Kevin). Did you even bother to check the links that provide several very good explanations that directly answer your question. Only one of them talked about the failed prophecies of the Bible. Yet you made no comment on the others. Some of which state that the prophecy has *not* been fulfilled.

So, if you're not going to pay attention to those answers, why are you continuing to ask a question that you know won't go anywhere?

Edited September 7, 2012 by Carborendum

[Zakuska]

Dup

Edited September 7, 2012 by Zakuska

[Michael Sanders]

A revelation given on Jan 19, 1841 sheds some additional light directly on this discussion:

"Verily, verily I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men, to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might, and with all they have, to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them, and hinder them performing that work; behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings; and the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments, I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God. Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson County, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God; and I will answer judgment, wrath and indignation, wailing and anguish, and gnashing of teeth, upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord your God. And this I make an example unto you, for your consolation, concerning all those who have been commanded to do a work, and have been hindered by the hands of their enemies, and by oppression, saith the Lord your God; for I am the Lord your God, and will save all those of your brethren who have been pure in heart, and have been slain in the land of Missouri, saith the Lord. And again, verily I say unto you, I command you again to build a house to my name, even in this place, that you may prove yourselves unto me that ye are faithful in all things whatsoever I command you, that I may bless you, and crown you with honor, immortality, and eternal life.” - Section 107:15-17 RLDS; 124:49-55 LDS

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Edited September 7, 2012 by Michael Sanders

[Zakuska]

Connecting the Navoo Temple with this prophecy rests on the assumption that the temple in verse 4 is different from the 'house of the lord' in verse 5. If they are the same then the navoo temple can't be the temple talked about because it wasn't built where JS said it would be. Further you are aware that verse 4 also states that the temple to be built on the temple lot would be "reared in this generation"

actually no its not. Read the heading to the chapter. The revelation was given in kirtland, so the "beginning at 'this' place" can only be referring to the kirtland temple. That's English grammar 101 DJ. Read the dedicatory prayer to the Kirtland temple. Everything that is said that would happen did happen at the dedication. A cloud rested on it and the glory of the lord filled the house and angels were seen by many.

English grammar lesson #2.

The generation wouldn't pass until "an" house was built. Six were built in that generation:

Kirtland

Nauvoo

Salt lake

Manti

St george

Ogden

The revelation was fulfilled six times over.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Zakuska

[djholmess]

In other words, you ask why we believe he met this standard, but don't accept an answer of "I don't think the standard even applies'

I didn't say I don't accept your answer I said I'm only interested in understanding the answer of someone who thinks JS prophecies were all true prophecies-and that he therefore does meet the standard. There is a difference. If I believe true prophets must meet this standard and ask the question about JS and D&C 84 but you respond 'your standard doesn't apply to JS' your response, whilst fine for you, isn't going to make me think you have a reasonable reason for thinking JS was a prophet. Therefore I'm directing my question at people who do believe JS met this standard and therefore can attempt to explain why they believe D&C 84 was not a false prophecy.

[djholmess]

A revelation given on Jan 19, 1841 sheds some additional light directly on this discussion:

"Verily, verily I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men, to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might, and with all they have, to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them, and hinder them performing that work; behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings; and the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments, I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God. Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson County, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God; and I will answer judgment, wrath and indignation, wailing and anguish, and gnashing of teeth, upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord your God. And this I make an example unto you, for your consolation, concerning all those who have been commanded to do a work, and have been hindered by the hands of their enemies, and by oppression, saith the Lord your God; for I am the Lord your God, and will save all those of your brethren who have been pure in heart, and have been slain in the land of Missouri, saith the Lord. And again, verily I say unto you, I command you again to build a house to my name, even in this place, that you may prove yourselves unto me that ye are faithful in all things whatsoever I command you, that I may bless you, and crown you with honor, immortality, and eternal life.” - Section 107:15-17 RLDS; 124:49-55 LDS

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

So are you saying that this later prophecy explains why the the prophecy in D&C 84 was fulfiled in a different location than the one given in the initial prophecy?

[djholmess]

actually no its not. Read the heading to the chapter. The revelation was given in kirtland, so the "beginning at 'this' place" can only be referring to the kirtland temple. That's English grammar 101 DJ. Read the dedicatory prayer to the Kirtland temple. Everything that is said that would happen did happen at the dedication. A cloud rested on it and the glory of the lord filled the house and angels were seen by many.

If 'this place' did not revere to Jackson county then can you explain why LDS apostles did in fact see the prophecy referring to Jackson county- As I posted in #9. Why should I accept your understanding of the prophecy rather than LDS apostles who were alive at the time?

[MormonMason]

Zakuska makes a good point here. The revelation only states that "an house" would be built in this generation and a cloud and Lord's glory would be upon it. It was--and five more houses of the Lord were built besides.

[djholmess]

Zakuska makes a good point here. The revelation only states that "an house" would be built in this generation and a cloud and Lord's glory would be upon it. It was--and five more houses of the Lord were built besides.

I understand what he's saying but is seems like a severe twisting of the text to say the house in verse 5 is different from the temple in verse 4 that was to be built on the temple lot. If that is how the prophecy is to be understood that's fine but then it would seem to me someone could use the same hermanutic to make the bible/BoM say anything.

E.g. The structure in verse 4 would 1)be reared in this generation and 2) is called a temple. The structure in verse 5 would 1) be built within this generation and 2) is called the house of the lord, another name for a temple. Further verse 5 is introduced with a 'for' demonstrating a grammatical link to verse 4, if the house of the lord in verse 5 is different to the temple verse 4 would we not expect a indicator be given that there is a shift in the thinking? Instead we see a linking word.

As I read the Bible and the BoM and any other book I seek to understand the author as they intended to be understood. To interpret the verse in the way Zakuska has purposed would I think be inconsistent with how, certainly I, and I would imagine you and Zakuska read authors elsewhere.

[Kevin Christensen]

If 'this place' did not revere to Jackson county then can you explain why LDS apostles did in fact see the prophecy referring to Jackson county- As I posted in #9. Why should I accept your understanding of the prophecy rather than LDS apostles who were alive at the time?

This strikes me as a very clear statement regarding the authority of LDS apostles and prophets: D&C 1:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these ^acommandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their ^blanguage, that they might come to ^cunderstanding.

25 And inasmuch as they ^aerred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought ^awisdom they might be ^binstructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be ^achastened, that they might ^brepent;

28 And inasmuch as they were ^ahumble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive ^bknowledge from time to time.

If the language and physical setting permits a Kirtland reading, and the prophesy was fulfilled to the letter in a Kirtland setting, and the formal revelatory charter spelling out the nature the authority of LDS authority permits the possibility of error being made, and that reading does not undermine the priesthood authority of those same authorities, and indeed supports it by showing the fulfillment, what is to be gained by insisting on a reading that claims that they should have been infallible if they were really were authorities?

It's pretty clear what is going in here.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[zerinus]

In a previous thread I had been discussing why I believe JS was a false prophet. I gave two reasons; 1 he lead people after a different God (Deut 13:1-4) and 2) he taught a false gospel; specifically in regards to justification (Romans 4 & Galatians 1).

Whilst I’m not enough of an expert in Mormon history to make false prophecies a concrete reason for believing JS to be a false prophet I have come across a number of prophecies that would seem to suggest he was. I’m interested to know what LDS make of these prophecies and how they think they were fulfilled?

In Deuteronomy 18 we read:

It seems that someone who claims to speak a prophecy in the name of the Lord, yet the prophecy does not come to pass was to be put to death; that would likely qualify such a prophet as a false prophet.

Prophecy 1:

This revelation that Joseph gave seems to claim;

1) it is from Jesus.

2) a temple lot had been set aside for the building of a temple.

3) a temple would be built within the generation of the hearers of the prophecy.

4) a city would be built around the city.

As far as I know no temple was built on this lot, to date a temple has yet to be built on this lot and the LDS church does not own the plot of land. How do you see this prophecy as being fulfilled or was this prophecy never fulfilled?

This is a commandment, not a prediction. "Shall be built" is a commandment to build, not a prediction that it will be built. It is like, "Thou shalt not kill". It doesn't mean that you won't kill. It means that you shouldn't.

D&C 58:

32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

33 Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.

D&C 124:

49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.

Edited September 7, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I don't see how this is specifically relevant the D&C 84. If you believe the bible has unconditional prophecies that proved false then that's your business, if you want to start another thread about those I'd be happy to comment as far as my knowledge allowed.

I have been asking about JS, D&C 84 and why Mormons who believe it is not a false prophecy think it is fulfilled or has yet to be fulfilled. If your argument is that this prophecy was a conditional prophecy then can you show me where u get this from? So far it seems to me all you have said is that you think some biblical prophecies failed...how does this prove D&C 84 didn't? or do you believe it is a false prophecy?

Jonah is a good example of a conditional prophecy. Jonah prophesied to Nineveh that in forty days the city would be destroyed because of the wickedness of the people, period. He didn't say, "unless you repent". But when the people repented, the city was not destroyed. In fact, Jonah himself was disappointed and displeased that his prophecy was not fulfilled!

Edited September 7, 2012 by zerinus

[Mark Beesley]

I didn't say I don't accept your answer I said I'm only interested in understanding the answer of someone who thinks JS prophecies were all true prophecies-and that he therefore does meet the standard. There is a difference. If I believe true prophets must meet this standard and ask the question about JS and D&C 84 but you respond 'your standard doesn't apply to JS' your response, whilst fine for you, isn't going to make me think you have a reasonable reason for thinking JS was a prophet. Therefore I'm directing my question at people who do believe JS met this standard and therefore can attempt to explain why they believe D&C 84 was not a false prophecy.

If you are looking for people who will, without question, accept your definition of the proper standard for judging a prophet, and then justify their own acceptance of someone who you believe does not meet that standard, then you are probably in the wrong place.

Incidentally, what Joseph Smith's contemporaries may have believed regarding the rearing of the temple seems to be wholly irrelevant in applying your favored standard, dont' you think? After all, Jesus' original apostles thought His second coming was imminent, and here we are, two thousand years later . . .