“To their credit, Mormonism’s founders did something the other self-proclaimed prophets throughout history never thought of: They lived in America. I’ll admit it even makes me a bit uncomfortable to think that my doctrine was established somewhere as unseemly as the Middle East.” Stephen Colbert from his audio book: I am America (And So Can You!)
Funnily enough can’t see anything in the Bible that says after Jesus there would be any more prophets before the second coming of Jesus, except false prophets that is.
How do the LDS explain this? The bible needed updating so the Prophet J Smith came along?
That’s pretty damned funny.
I know the Bible warns there may be false prophets, but does it specifically say that ALL prophets will be false? Or does it merely not mention that there would be any more (true) prophets? The latter would hardly be a concern, as it did not mention that there would be Hello Kitty umbrellas either, but they do now exist.
That’s pretty damned funny.
I know the Bible warns there may be false prophets, but does it specifically say that ALL prophets will be false? Or does it merely not mention that there would be any more (true) prophets? The latter would hardly be a concern, as it did not mention that there would be Hello Kitty umbrellas either, but they do now exist.[/quote]
Are there Hello Kitty Prophets?
It warns that other ‘prophets’ would come, but that they would all be false. It states specifically that prophecy would pass away. It also makes the point that if anyone, even an angel from heaven, came and taught anything other than what had already been taught, they would be false.
The part in bold is ironically applicable to the LDS Church.
It warns that other ‘prophets’ would come, but that they would all be false. It states specifically that prophecy would pass away. It also makes the point that if anyone, even an angel from heaven, came and taught anything other than what had already been taught, they would be false.[/quote]
All? Wow, that does seem pretty strong. Do you have the other relevant passages (beyond the Galatian one) handy? (Sorry if they’ve already been presented in the above thread, but I’ve only managed to skim it for insults, for the most part, he he). I certainly don’t doubt your word, but it would be interesting to actually see and pause to reflect on all relevant passages. After all, that would seem to render inherently contradictory the idea of any group which on the one hand took as literally true the Word of God as represented by the Bible and which on the other added new prophets.
Also, the Galatian quote mentions “a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you” – ok, but what if such a gospel weren’t ‘contrary’ but were rather supplemental? Or consistent? Would that too be a false prophet, and if so, according to what passage?
I don’t have a point, nor do I have any agenda here whatsoever. I’m just wondering what the Bible actually says on such matters, and what the implications are for any group such as the Mormons which claims to have additional prophets.
It was well recognized by the early Christian community. By the end of the 1st century Christians already had in place various tests to determine whether or not a self declared prophet was true, and some time after the 1st century it was recognized that prophecy and the other supernatural gifts were no longer available. Any movement based on a self declared prophet was subsequently declared heretical (2nd century Irenaeus, ‘Against Heresies’ 1:14, 4th century Eusebius, ‘Ecclesiastical History’, 5:16).
I’ll provide a few off the top of my head:
-
In the Olivet prophecy (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), Jesus warns that after his departure only false prophets would come: ‘And many false prophets will appear and deceive many’ (Matthew 24:11), ‘For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, the elect’ (Mark 13:22)
-
1 Corinthians 13 explains that the miraculous gifts (healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc), would eventually be removed: ‘Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside’ (verse 8)
-
2 Peter 2:1 warns that false prophets would arise, leading others into apostasy: ‘But false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.1 These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. As a result, they will bring7 swift destruction on themselves’
Every mention of prophets subsequent to the apostolic age declares that they would be false prophets. All the writings mentioning future prophets insist that they will be false (Matthew 7:15; 24:24, 1 John 4:1, etc). Speaking pragmatically, this is a method of circumscribing and canonizing the theological message of the sect, and precluding subsequent amendment and development. It’s a demonstration that the community had already determined its theological identity and beliefs, and would now be resistant to change.
The 1st century document ‘The Didache’ (typically dated between 70 and 100 AD), is a non-canonical work which reveals that the Christian community had already reached this point, and contains evidence that self declared prophets were now already viewed skeptically, and that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit were considered no longer available:
This position was so strong that the concept of true prophets and miraculous gifts being available to individual Christians was rejected by the early church (2nd century Irenaeus, 3rd century Origen, 4th century Eusebius, and Chrysostom).
Quite.
Well of course that’s what groups such as the LDS claim. They claim theirs is a ‘supplemental’ gospel which is consistent with the apostolic gospel. But they then shoot themselves in the foot by claiming that even the New Testament became corrupted such that it no longer teaches the true gospel. They have to do this in order to explain why their doctrine is so different to that of the New Testament. So they cannot actually prove their claim that their gospel is consistent with the apostolic gospel, since they claim the apostolic gospel was lost subsequent to Christ.
This is contrary to the message of the New Testament, which says that although there would be an apostasy from the true gospel, the true gospel would always be available. In any case, a gospel contrary to the one taught would include any teaching that prophecy was still available, since it was specifically stated that prophecy would pass away. But there’s nothing ‘supplemental’ about LDS henotheism. The claim that there is more than one God is not ‘supplemental’ to the original gospel message, it’s heretical. The claim that Jesus was not a man but is God, is likewise heretical. So also is the claim that the gospel would be entirely eclipsed from the end of the 1st century until being revived in the 19th.
Ok, but I’m looking just for the content in the Bible itself, and am looking for precision (not ‘false prophets will come’ --I’m aware of that content, but ‘only false prophets will come’, which I don’t remember seeing). To me, logically, based on the words themselves rather than on the opinions of later Church writers in interpreting them, only the latter would rule out subsequent prophecies as necessarily false, although the former of course is a warning that such prophecies at the very least may be false.
[quote]I’ll provide a few off the top of my head:
- In the Olivet prophecy (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), Jesus warns that after his departure only false prophets would come: ‘And many false prophets will appear and deceive many’ (Matthew 24:11), ‘For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, the elect’ (Mark 13:22)[/quote]
Ok, thanks. I’ve bolded the word only in your writing, but then in the verses I don’t see that. I understand that others may interpret the verses as meaning ‘only’, but again, I’m just wondering whether that has been stated more explicitly.
Ok, that’s more like it. 
[quote]* 2 Peter 2:1 warns that false prophets would arise, leading others into apostasy: ‘But false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.1 These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. As a result, they will bring7 swift destruction on themselves’
Every mention of prophets subsequent to the apostolic age declares that they would be false prophets. All the writings mentioning future prophets insist that they will be false (Matthew 7:15; 24:24, 1 John 4:1, etc). Speaking pragmatically, this is a method of circumscribing and canonizing the theological message of the sect, and precluding subsequent amendment and development. It’s a demonstration that the community had already determined its theological identity and beliefs, and would now be resistant to change. [/quote]
Ok, taken as a whole, especially with the addition of the 1 Corinthians 13 verse, I can see the rejection of future prophecy, based on which the Mormon prophesies cannot be considered consistent with the Christian Bible, so I can understand some (not me) using this as a basis for rejecting the application of the category “Christian” to Mormons.
That’s very interesting. I couldn’t bring myself to actually read all the back and forth between you and RDO, of course 
, but what form does the claim of this loss of the apostolic gospel take? Is it in the Book of Mormon itself, later dogmatic and official writing, later verbal tradition, or what? Just curious.
Sure, that’s clear to me as well.
Sure, that’s clear to me as well.[/quote]
so you mean all those LDS and Mormons going to burn in hell for teaching false religious messages?
Damn… I was expecting peace and quiet in hell but now I will have to deal with them in hell as well… 
And I just bet they will come a-knocking on the door to your cave of fire and wake you from an afternoon nap.
Well I guess it just means… NO< MORMOMS AINT CHRISTIANS…
OK now that we got that settled what’s next?
Can anyone recommend a good book about the Mormon faith? Ideally something somewhat objective, neither too missionizing, nor too critical.
Hmmm… I posted this on the “Who is Christian?” thread, but it seems more appropriate here:
I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a Mormon). I’m a Christian.
I recognize many other Christians don’t accept that I am a Christian and I realize it boils down to a disagreement on definition.
We call ourselves Christian because we believe that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten of God, the Father. He is our Savior. He created the Earth. He is the central figure in God’s plan for us.
Most Christian denominations do not call us Christian because we reject the trinitarian-concept of the Godhead…an idea that was introduced at least a century after Christ’s death and not widely accepted until the Nicean Creed in the 4th century.
In a sense, you can call my religion polytheistic, but while we recognize the existence of more than one god, we recognize and worship only God, our Father, as the Supreme Being.
We believe in the Bible and strongly believe that our belief system is much more consistent with the Bible than trinitarian Christian faiths. In my view, numerous biblical references attest to the idea that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate entities, but united as one in purpose.
The idea of the trinity did not exist during the first century after Christ’s death. It was widely accepted that Christ was not coequal with God, the Father, but subordinate to him. The idea that they are coequal is, in my reading of the Bible, not supported by the bibilical text. There are certainly many statements of their “oneness,” but Christ explained this oneness in his prayer recorded in John 17. That prayer contains the following statements:
"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
Then while praying for his disciples, Christ said:
"that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
"The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,"
It seems to me, and to others of my faith, that Christ is explaining here how God, the Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit are one. If his notion of “one” is the same as the trinitarian notion, why would he pray that we can all be one “just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you?” Is he suggesting that we can all become part of the Trinity God? Or is he suggesting that The Father and Christ are united in purpose and intent and that we can also be united with them in this purpose? The latter seems to be the likely intention.
2 Likes
Sounds like Arianism
Technically speaking, I don’t see much separating the Arian belief in Christ with the Latter-day Saint doctrine. The only difference is perhaps the claim that Christ did not always exist. In LDS doctrine, all souls are eternal in nature and prior to being organized by our Heavenly Father, we all existed as “intelligences.”
The LDS scripture that addresses this is in what we call the Doctrine and Covenants. In section 93 verse 29, it states:
“Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created nor made, neither indeed can be …”
So the Arian idea that Christ was created by God at some finite point in time is not entirely consistent with LDS teachings.
I’m not too good at figuring out what’s the meaning behind religious writings, but if that’s the case, how could God have created man if man was also in the beginning with him?
No one understands all of the workings of religious concepts, but my understanding of LDS doctrine on this is that we existed as “intelligences” prior to the moment in which God created us as “spirits.”
An LDS prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, once said:
"Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created nor made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual."
1 Like
How?
When he is saying “we,” he is referring to believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is referring to the scriptures accepted by members of that church such as the verse I posted above. Members of the LDS church believe “there is something called intelligence which always existed” because that assertion is made in scriptures that we believe are divinely-inspired truth.
1 Like
So the “Doctrine and Covenants” are “scripture” and presumably inerrant?