Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[
According to the Book of Jonah...evidently the king and citizens of Nineveh did not consider him to be a false prophet when they heeded his words and repented in sackcloth and ashes.

I would advise you to read the Book of Jonah again.

The people of Nineveh never called Jonah a false prophet. People don't generally heed the warnings of people they consider to be a false prophet.

Now...the second verse of the First Chapter Jonah only says this about what God commanded Jonah to say.

'Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before Me.'

The second verse of Chapter 3 says..."Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee."

Nothing is said about telling Nineveh that it would be overthrown in forty days.

Has the thought occurred to you that perhaps God didn't tell Jonah to say this? That perhaps God instructed him to preach repentance...or else face the wrath of God?

That perhaps this is why the king and the people began repenting fervently as soon as the words left Jonah's mouth?

Kent...there is nothing in the entire book of Jonah that states that the people called Jonah a false prophet. Nothing.

They repented. God saw that they had repented and his anger was cooled.

Jonah is the one who was exceedingly displeased, and even angry. Jonah was the one who set up a booth, and waited for an event that was never to happen.

Jonah fretted that he had been made to look the fool...or the false prophet...but there were NONE who called him thus.

Not really the point I was trying to make, but this is typical of you and Wren to try to change the topic.

The POINT was that Jonah made a Prophecy, then when the lord changed things Jonah was mad at God for making him look bad. Jonah did not give condition's up front, just that the city would be destroyed, it was only later he found out the Lord would change his Prophecy if the people would repent.

Now, this conversation got started when the anti's idjits start claiming Joseph a false Prophet because he made a Prophecy that didn't come true, when there may also have been conditions just as Jonah's Prophecy.

And you have just back-peddled.

You were claiming that the people of Ninevah mocked Jonah and called him a false prophet.

And now you are back-peddling.

Throughout the Old Testament...God sent prophets to warn those who had become wicked to repent...or face destruction.

When God first told Jonah to ..."Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before Me."

No mention of telling them they had forty days before Nineveh would be overthrown.

Jonah did not want the responsibility, and fled.

The second time God told Jonah to...'Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee."

Again...no mention of a countdown of 40 days to the overthrow of Nineveh.

But then again...Jonah was apparently a man of few words, and not prone to expounding.

And again...in neither case, when God spoke to Jonah and instructed him to preach to Nineveh...did God instruct Jonah to say that Nineveh would be overthrown in 40 days.

Perhaps Jonah was thinking about Noah...and the 40 days of devastating rain and floods.


No, I trapped you, Wren and Blogan had no answer, notice they have not even got in on this conversation. They have no clue. Their preachers don't go into the Old Testement, only a few versus in Romans, that's about it. If someone caught the biblical reality of concept of conditional Prophecy, as you did, I would point out that is this not what Joseph could have had happen with some of his Prophecy's that the anti's claim didn't happen? You just got owned pops.

B-FLIPPIN-S Kent...you have not trapped me...you have only succeeded in entangling yourself deeper and deeper in your own ignorance.

Whether Wren or BLogan choose to answer your questions of not...or involve themselves in your conversations with other participants or not is entirely up to them.

Wren and BLogan are capable of seeing that I require no assistance in this line of discussion.

I was discussing the Old Testament prophetss and their prophecies which you claimed were failed prophecies...but as far as Joseph Smith...he received the same kind of warning from God as did Zedekiah.

And like Zedekiah...even though Joseph Smith repented of his disobedience and unfaithfulness for a time...he did not consistently heed the warnings...and he was taken captive...and he was killed.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
The damaging evidence continues>>>

Millennial Star, 15:801; President Samual W. Richards, British Mission President; November, 1853.

ADAM, THE FATHER AND GOD OF THE HUMAN FAMILY
The above sentiment appeared in Star No. 48, a little to the surprise of some of its readers; and while the sentiment may have appeared blasphemous to the ignorant, it has no doubt given rise to some serious reflections with the more candid and comprehensive mind. A few reasonable and scriptural ideas upon this subject may be profitable at the present time.
Then Adam is really God! And why not? If there are Lords many and Gods many, as the scriptures inform us, why not our Father Adam be one of them?


Millennial Star, 15:842; President Samual W. Richards, British Mission President; December 1853.

It has been said that Adam is the God and Father of the human family, and persons are perhaps in fear and great trouble of mind, lest they have to acknowledge him as such in some future day. For our part we would much rather acknowledge Adam to be our Father than hunt for another and take up with the devil. Whoever is acknowledged Father must have the rights and honor that belong to him. No man may ever expect to attain to more than he is willing others should enjoy. If these things have power to disturb the pure mind, we apprehend that even greater troubles than these may arise before mankind learn all the particulars of Christ's incarnation---Whatever may prove to be the facts in the case it certainly would exhibit a great degree of weakness on the part of anyone to indulge in fears and anxieties about that which he has no power to control. Facts still remain facts whether kept or revealed. If there is a way pointed out by which all beings who come into this world can lay the foundation for rule, and a never-ending increase of kingdoms and dominions, by which they can become Gods, we are all willing the Lord Jesus Christ should enjoy them all as any other being, ascribing honor and power to him as their God. The Apostle informs us that those who are redeemed shall be like Jesus; not to say, however, that they shall be wifeless and childless, and without eternal affections. It should be borne in mind that these wonderful mysteries, as they are supposed to be, are only mysteries because of the ignorance of men; and when men and women are troubled in spirit over these things which come to light through the proper channel of intelligence, they only betray their weakness, ignorance, and folly.


Journal of Wilford Woodruff, February 19, 1854.
He (B.Y.) said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ---Our God was no more or less than ADAM, Michael the Archangel.


Millennial Star; June, 1854.
16:482 --- (Report by Elder Thomas Cafall):
They (the members of the district) are lacking faith on one principle---the last "cat that was let out of the bag." Polygamy has been got over pretty well; that cloud has vanished away, but they are troubled about Adam being our Father and God. There is a very intelligent person investigating our principles, and who has been a great help to the Saints; he has all the works, and can get along with everything else but the last "cat", and as soon as he can see that clearly, he will become a "Mormon." I instructed him to write to Liverpool upon it.

16:483 --- Elder Joseph Hall: Relative to the principles recently revealed, we have not the least difficulty. If Adam's being our Father and God cannot be proved by the Bible, it is all right.

16:530 --- Elder James A. Little: I believe in the principle of obedience; and if I am told that Adam is our Father and our God, I just believe it. Brethren, I feel well, and have felt well all the time.

16:629 --- It has fallen to your lot to preside over the British Saints at a time and under circumstances unparalleled in the history of the work in this country. The introduction of the Law of Celestial Marriage, which in its operations, will revolutionize all our political, religious, and domestic arrangements; and the announcement of the position which Adam, our great progenitor, occupies among the Gods; have marked your Presidency as a special epoch in the history of the British Mission.


Millennial Star, 16:534; Franklin D. Richards, Apostle; June, 1854. F. D. Richards became the new British Mission President at this time.
Concerning the item of doctrine alluded to by Elder Caffall and others, viz., that Adam is our Father and our God, I have to say do not trouble ourselves, neither let the Saints be troubled about that matter. The Lord has told us in a revelation which he gave through the Prophet Joseph, Jan. 19, 1841 --- "I deign to reveal unto my Church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fullness of times." (D&C 124:41) I would like to know where you will find scriptures to prove those things, by which have never before been revealed. Some feel their bounded duty to prove everything which belongs to our faith from the Bible, but I do not, and I will excuse you from all obligation to prove this from the Old Scriptures, for you cannot, if you try. You may bring much collateral evidence from the Bible and other revelations that will dissipate objections, and serve to strengthen the position, but to directly and substantially prove it, as the world requires, and as we can the first principles, it will puzzle you to do it, and from henceforth we may expect more and more of the word of the Lord giving us instructions which are nowhere written in the Old Scriptures. If we feel ourselves, and teach the Saints or the people generally, that we are only to believe that which can be proved from the scriptures, we shall never know much of the Lord ourselves, nor be able to teach the children of men to any very considerable extent. If as Elder Caffall remarked, there are those who are waiting at the door of the Church for this objection to be removed, tell such, THE PROPHET AND APOSTLE BRIGHAM HAS DECLARED IT, AND THAT IS THE WORD OF THE LORD. That is vastly stronger proof than Christendom can give for much that they profess to believe. Tell the Saints that if this stone does not seem to fit into the great building of their faith just now, to roll it aside. You can help them roll it out of their way so that they will be but a short time till they will find a place in their building where no other stone will fit; then it will be on hand all right, and will come into its place in the building without the sound of hammer or chisel.


Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Ms/f/115, CHO; September 17, 1854.
President Young preached this afternoon & spoke upon the Law of Consecration & had an interesting conversation in our Prayer Circle; the subject of Elder Orson Pratt publishing the Seer & the doctrine it contained was brought up in conversation. President Young said he ought not to have published the marriage ceremony, it was sacred & one of the last ceremonies attended to in the endowments & ought not to have been given to the world. Brother Pratt said that he thought it was no harm as the plurality of wives & its doctrines was to be published to the world. He said he should not have done it---if he had thought there had been the least harm in it. President Young said he was satisfied that he intended no wrong in it. He said that the doctrine taught in the Seer that God had arrived at that state whereby he could not advance any further in knowledge, power & glory was a false doctrine & not true. That there never will be a time to all eternity when all the Gods of eternity will cease advancing in power, knowledge, experience & glory, for if this was the case, eternity would cease to be & the glory of God would come to an end, but all of the celestial beings will continue to advance in knowledge & power, worlds without end. Joseph would always be ahead of us, we should never catch up with him in all eternity nor he with his leaders. Brother Pratt also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the earth. Could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He came from another world & made this. Brought Eve with him, partook of the fruits of the earth, begat children & they were earthly & had mortal bodies & if we were faithful, we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his philosophical reasoning & get revelation from God to govern him & enlighten his mind more & it would be a great blessing to him to lay aside his books & go into the canyons as some of the rest of us was doing & it would be better for him. He said his philosophy injured him in a measure many good things was said by President Young that we should grow up in revelation so that principle would govern every act of our lives. He had never found any difficulty in leading this people since Joseph's death.


I see Blogan is still being the good little "saved" bible thumper and trying to belittle others faith but won't answer simple questions about his own. typical.
How is he "belittling"? All I see is something he cut and pasted. These are quotes from Wilford Woodruff and other leaders of that time. So I fail to see how he is belitting.

For what it's worth, I may not agree with some of what these leaders said, but that's beside the point.

Yea, he's just a good guy trying to give out information, that's why he's here. You are naive kitkat, and sometimes not that bright.
Back up. What BLogan posted are quotes from our own leaders. He didn't make them up. So what's your problem? I know why he's here, and I know why you're here. You are both here for the exact same reason, to stir things up.

Think about it, dubs. You're just as big an azz as you say the anti's are. You are the Church's worst enemy on this forum.

Wasn't it you who was arguing with him a few days ago about whether the Journal of discourse is our doctrine?

Don't argue with me just to argue Kitkat, you know he comes here and copy and pastes from some anti site to try to claim things that past leaders have said are contradictory to our current beliefs, that's what anti's do if you haven't noticed by now. Don't be arguing with me just to argue, you know this.

The truth of the matter is...that there were things which past leaders said which are contradictory to our current beliefs.

The anti's aren't making anything up here. Brigham Young taught a great many things from the pulpit which were contrary and contradictory to our current beliefs.

Didn't say they were making things up in this case clavin, I said they come here to belittle and mock, without looking for understanding. Try to follow gramps.

No Kent...I am not your 'gramps'...but if I WERE...for a certainty you would have been raised to be courteous and respectful to your elders.

And no again Kent...what you said was...'You know he comes here and copy and pastes from some anti site TO TRY TO CLAIM THINGS THAT PAST LEADERS HAVE SAID ARE CONTRADICTORY TO OUR CURRENT BELIEFS...'

And...as I pointed out to you, pup, his sites were right on the nose.

Past leaders HAVE said a great many things which are contradictory to our current beliefs.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
BLogan wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
The damaging evidence continues>>>

Millennial Star, 15:801; President Samual W. Richards, British Mission President; November, 1853.

ADAM, THE FATHER AND GOD OF THE HUMAN FAMILY
The above sentiment appeared in Star No. 48, a little to the surprise of some of its readers; and while the sentiment may have appeared blasphemous to the ignorant, it has no doubt given rise to some serious reflections with the more candid and comprehensive mind. A few reasonable and scriptural ideas upon this subject may be profitable at the present time.
Then Adam is really God! And why not? If there are Lords many and Gods many, as the scriptures inform us, why not our Father Adam be one of them?


Millennial Star, 15:842; President Samual W. Richards, British Mission President; December 1853.

It has been said that Adam is the God and Father of the human family, and persons are perhaps in fear and great trouble of mind, lest they have to acknowledge him as such in some future day. For our part we would much rather acknowledge Adam to be our Father than hunt for another and take up with the devil. Whoever is acknowledged Father must have the rights and honor that belong to him. No man may ever expect to attain to more than he is willing others should enjoy. If these things have power to disturb the pure mind, we apprehend that even greater troubles than these may arise before mankind learn all the particulars of Christ's incarnation---Whatever may prove to be the facts in the case it certainly would exhibit a great degree of weakness on the part of anyone to indulge in fears and anxieties about that which he has no power to control. Facts still remain facts whether kept or revealed. If there is a way pointed out by which all beings who come into this world can lay the foundation for rule, and a never-ending increase of kingdoms and dominions, by which they can become Gods, we are all willing the Lord Jesus Christ should enjoy them all as any other being, ascribing honor and power to him as their God. The Apostle informs us that those who are redeemed shall be like Jesus; not to say, however, that they shall be wifeless and childless, and without eternal affections. It should be borne in mind that these wonderful mysteries, as they are supposed to be, are only mysteries because of the ignorance of men; and when men and women are troubled in spirit over these things which come to light through the proper channel of intelligence, they only betray their weakness, ignorance, and folly.


Journal of Wilford Woodruff, February 19, 1854.
He (B.Y.) said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ---Our God was no more or less than ADAM, Michael the Archangel.


Millennial Star; June, 1854.
16:482 --- (Report by Elder Thomas Cafall):
They (the members of the district) are lacking faith on one principle---the last "cat that was let out of the bag." Polygamy has been got over pretty well; that cloud has vanished away, but they are troubled about Adam being our Father and God. There is a very intelligent person investigating our principles, and who has been a great help to the Saints; he has all the works, and can get along with everything else but the last "cat", and as soon as he can see that clearly, he will become a "Mormon." I instructed him to write to Liverpool upon it.

16:483 --- Elder Joseph Hall: Relative to the principles recently revealed, we have not the least difficulty. If Adam's being our Father and God cannot be proved by the Bible, it is all right.

16:530 --- Elder James A. Little: I believe in the principle of obedience; and if I am told that Adam is our Father and our God, I just believe it. Brethren, I feel well, and have felt well all the time.

16:629 --- It has fallen to your lot to preside over the British Saints at a time and under circumstances unparalleled in the history of the work in this country. The introduction of the Law of Celestial Marriage, which in its operations, will revolutionize all our political, religious, and domestic arrangements; and the announcement of the position which Adam, our great progenitor, occupies among the Gods; have marked your Presidency as a special epoch in the history of the British Mission.


Millennial Star, 16:534; Franklin D. Richards, Apostle; June, 1854. F. D. Richards became the new British Mission President at this time.
Concerning the item of doctrine alluded to by Elder Caffall and others, viz., that Adam is our Father and our God, I have to say do not trouble ourselves, neither let the Saints be troubled about that matter. The Lord has told us in a revelation which he gave through the Prophet Joseph, Jan. 19, 1841 --- "I deign to reveal unto my Church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fullness of times." (D&C 124:41) I would like to know where you will find scriptures to prove those things, by which have never before been revealed. Some feel their bounded duty to prove everything which belongs to our faith from the Bible, but I do not, and I will excuse you from all obligation to prove this from the Old Scriptures, for you cannot, if you try. You may bring much collateral evidence from the Bible and other revelations that will dissipate objections, and serve to strengthen the position, but to directly and substantially prove it, as the world requires, and as we can the first principles, it will puzzle you to do it, and from henceforth we may expect more and more of the word of the Lord giving us instructions which are nowhere written in the Old Scriptures. If we feel ourselves, and teach the Saints or the people generally, that we are only to believe that which can be proved from the scriptures, we shall never know much of the Lord ourselves, nor be able to teach the children of men to any very considerable extent. If as Elder Caffall remarked, there are those who are waiting at the door of the Church for this objection to be removed, tell such, THE PROPHET AND APOSTLE BRIGHAM HAS DECLARED IT, AND THAT IS THE WORD OF THE LORD. That is vastly stronger proof than Christendom can give for much that they profess to believe. Tell the Saints that if this stone does not seem to fit into the great building of their faith just now, to roll it aside. You can help them roll it out of their way so that they will be but a short time till they will find a place in their building where no other stone will fit; then it will be on hand all right, and will come into its place in the building without the sound of hammer or chisel.


Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Ms/f/115, CHO; September 17, 1854.
President Young preached this afternoon & spoke upon the Law of Consecration & had an interesting conversation in our Prayer Circle; the subject of Elder Orson Pratt publishing the Seer & the doctrine it contained was brought up in conversation. President Young said he ought not to have published the marriage ceremony, it was sacred & one of the last ceremonies attended to in the endowments & ought not to have been given to the world. Brother Pratt said that he thought it was no harm as the plurality of wives & its doctrines was to be published to the world. He said he should not have done it---if he had thought there had been the least harm in it. President Young said he was satisfied that he intended no wrong in it. He said that the doctrine taught in the Seer that God had arrived at that state whereby he could not advance any further in knowledge, power & glory was a false doctrine & not true. That there never will be a time to all eternity when all the Gods of eternity will cease advancing in power, knowledge, experience & glory, for if this was the case, eternity would cease to be & the glory of God would come to an end, but all of the celestial beings will continue to advance in knowledge & power, worlds without end. Joseph would always be ahead of us, we should never catch up with him in all eternity nor he with his leaders. Brother Pratt also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the earth. Could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He came from another world & made this. Brought Eve with him, partook of the fruits of the earth, begat children & they were earthly & had mortal bodies & if we were faithful, we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his philosophical reasoning & get revelation from God to govern him & enlighten his mind more & it would be a great blessing to him to lay aside his books & go into the canyons as some of the rest of us was doing & it would be better for him. He said his philosophy injured him in a measure many good things was said by President Young that we should grow up in revelation so that principle would govern every act of our lives. He had never found any difficulty in leading this people since Joseph's death.


I see Blogan is still being the good little "saved" bible thumper and trying to belittle others faith but won't answer simple questions about his own. typical.
How is he "belittling"? All I see is something he cut and pasted. These are quotes from Wilford Woodruff and other leaders of that time. So I fail to see how he is belitting.

For what it's worth, I may not agree with some of what these leaders said, but that's beside the point.

The point is that these leaders were all either false prophets, or not apostles of Jesus Christ.

Even the first Apostles of Jesus Christ didn't always understand what He was trying to teach them.

They were constantly asking Him to explain this parable or that parable to them. He often grew somewhat frustrated at their lack of understanding.

When Jesus gave authority to His disciples to preach the gospel, cast out devils, and heal the sick.

His disciples went forth as instructed, but returned and asked why that they had been unable to cast out the devils and heal the sick.

Jesus explained that it was due to the fact that they lacked the faith necessary to do these things.

If they had even the amount of faith that a grain of a mustard seed had...they could have done these things.

Just as Peter attempted to walk to Jesus upon the water...and made some progress before his own self-doubt started to sink him.

Apostles and prophets are human beings, subject to human mistakes, and frailties, and errors, and even imaginings.

Their humanity does not mean that they are false prophets, or true disciples...it simply means that they are human.

Wow, defending the infalliblity of Prophets, that's a first I think, and a big leap to stopping the bashing of them.

Wrong again Kent...and I'll tell you why.

1. When I discuss the words and behaviors of prophets...and the incidences in which their words and behaviors are not consistent...this is not bashing. This is discussion.

2. Once again...you have mistaken fallibility with infallibility.

3. You've misspelled INFALLIBILITY.

Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
[b
Ok dubbs, why don't you just save us the hassle of your little games and just show us any prophecy from any Mormon leader that came to pass.

Ahh Grasshopper, when you are ready to learn, the teacher will appear, read and study, maybe some day you learn truth.

Here we go...

The American Civil war and how it would start-accurate

The saints would prosper and thrive in the Rocky Mountains-accurate

Funny one, in D&C 122 He Prophecied this.

1 The ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee;

We see that here daily.

Section 121 says he will return to his friends soon, this came true.

Section 122 also says he will be imprisoned many times throughout his life, this came true.

Many times he prophesied that though imprisoned, no one would be killed

He then Prophesied his death in his final imprisonment

The Word of Wisdom is Prophecy that is accurate


Joseph "prophesied that within five years we should be out of the power of our old enemies, whether they were apostates or of the world; and told the brethren to record it, that when it comes to pass they need not say they had forgotten the saying." This is recorded in History of the Church , Vol. 6, p. 225

He correctly prophesied the whigg party would be decimated. In fact it no longer exists.


He correctly prophesied of the destruction of Jackson country Missouri.


He correctly prohesied that the hearts of the children would be turned to their fathers thru geneology.


Section 5 of the D&C correctly prophecys about the three witness.

Many prophetic miricles involving Newel K Whitney

Many prophecys of healing and healings done.


Joseph predicted New York and Boston would one day have stakes


Prophecized of a man named Dan Jones would serve a mission


Prophecized that Signey Rigdon would be a spokesman for the church, which also fulfils a Book of Mormon prophecy.


He correctly Prophecized that a Brother Markham would escape jail and safely return to his family

He correctly Prophecized in D&C 118 that the apostles would go into far west and lay the cornerstone to the temple, at the time the saints were afraid of far west and the mobs there, but did so, fulfilling the Prophecy.


Joseph Read peoples minds in prophetic ways many times.


Prophecized of the end of the Kirtland era


Prophecized his enemies would not prosper


Prophecized slaves would rize up against there masters

I have more, but you get the idea. Bash away

DUBBS WROTE:
The American Civil war and how it would start-accurate

HERE READ THIS:
Mormon have always placed a lot of emphasis on Joseph Smith's supposed Civil War prophecy ...the only thing they fail to take into account are the historical record and the facts.

In December 25, 1832, (keep this date in mind) Joseph Smith had this famous revelation...D&C 87:1 reads "VERILY, thus saith the Lord concerning the that will come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;"

Modern Mormons take this to suggest in hindsight that Joseph Smith was referring to the Civil War, which was still many many years away.... BUT the truth is that South Carolina had for many years been a hotbed of rebellion and had made many threats regarding its sovrenty over the federal government. In 1831, there was a slave rebellion, but it was successfully put down. In 1832* (remember this date?) President Jackson signed into law a new tariff that the S.C. legislature felt was unjust, the state threatened to rebel. In response to South Carolina's threat, Jackson sent seven small naval vessels and a man-of-war to Charleston in November 1832. Interestingly enough Joseph Smith had his revelation only 1 month later...was he a prophet...or an avid reader of the newspaper?

So the sad fact is...ANY Mormon or citizen of the United States could have made that broad prediction regarding a rebellion in South Carolina....

Initially the revelation was taken out of the D&C because it never happend as predicted. People began to quest it's authenticity. When the Cvil War did in fact happen the verse was inserted or re-inserted back into the D&C.

Also note D&C 87:3:
"For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend them selves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations."
Emphasis added.

A review of American history will show that the Confederacy did ask Great Britain and France for assistance, and were refused. The Civil War was not "poured out upon all nations", and did not become a World War. So even with his post hoc prophecy he got it wrong by continuing to embellish the story.

If God really wanted to give Joseph Smith some inside info on the Civil War, why didn't he just say "Lo, heed well my words, my servant Joseph: In 1861 there will be a war between the Northern and Southern states, it will last four years, and 500,000 people will die. The North is going to win. Oh, and by the way, I'd stay away from Carthage, Illinois if I were you."

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
[
Dubbs did exactly what I figured he would. He posted the excuse that holds no water. The journals were screened for accuracy of the commentary before they were printed.

Yes, the Journals are an accurate account of what was being preached, and the FAIR/FARM rebuttal is wrong to suggest that the sermons were not accurate in intent and content.

You obviously didn't read what I posted, here's a cliff notes version for the mentally challenged.

"Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication."


This is the churches website giving their official version, they did not "proof read" as you are inaccuratly claiming. Your research skills are nill.

Hey gumball, please show us some complaint from any of the leadership of that time, lets say within 15 years should we?

Of course the current leadership of the Mormon Church is going to issue some statement like this, it's called damage control and it's very deceptive and dishonest.


If you read the history of the Journal of discourses, it is clear the church never meant for them to be the last word and perfect sermons that have no mistakes. LDS people know this, and your little copy and pastes from anti sites are not only something we've seen here hundreds of times, it's funny to see you think your posting something new.

When the sermons of the JD were given, they were indeed the last word at that time for the LDS. That is why they are upsetting to LDS today and why the GAs advise folks to stay away from God's prophets' words more than a century ago.

Really? The General Authorities advise folks to stay away from the words of God's prophets more than a century ago?

Gee. I wonder why, then, that so much time is spent in the LDS Church pouring over the words and teachings of Joseph Smith?

Why Church history (the officially sanitized version) is taught to children in Primary, Sunday School, Seminary, Young Adults, and in Institute Classes?

If the current G.A.'s are really advising folks to stay away from the words of past prophets...why have so many books based upon the lives and the words of these prophets been touted by the Church?

And why should anyone heed the words of the founder of the faith...and his successors?