# Mormon Prophecies



## Hilasmos (Mar 29, 2012)

So, I have become motivated to study mormonism some. I am reading chapters out of White's _Letter's to a Mormon Elder_, _Mormon Claims Answered_, and _The Gospel according to Joseph Smith_.

Anyways, I am honestly struggling with the long list of the false prophecies of mormonism. The mormon prophecies are rediculous, no doubt, but what I am finding is that they are more ambigously worded than what their Christian critique would suggest. 

For example, from Cowan's book _Mormon Claims Answered_ he gives an example:



> 11. D. & C. 124:56-60 is part of the previous revelation and says the "Nauvoo House" was to be built and that Joseph Smith and his descendants were to "have place in that house, from generation to generation, forever and ever!" But, Smith was killed, and the Nauvoo House was never even completed, so the Smith family never occupied it. The unfinished building still stands by the Mississippi River and is owned by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thus, this prophecy has never been fulfilled. But, D. & C. 1:37 says, "Search these commandments for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled." This is part of the preface to all the revelations given by Joseph Smith in the first edition. Therefore, all of the examples we have given in the D. & C. should have been fulfilled!



Another web article words it this way:



> In D&C 124.56-60, Smith prophesied that the Nauvoo House in Nauvoo, IL. *would be *in his family forever (1841). It did not remain in his family, and is not owned by them today. This makes for a very false prophecy.



Notice the phrase "would be." That seems to be the crux of the critique, Smith was giving revelation about what "would" be the case, it wasn't the case, so Smith is a false prophet. Sounds good to me, but then I go read the section in D&C, and it just doesn't seem to carry the same weight when it isn't "summarized" by the Christian. 

Here is v. 56 from D&C 124 (Doctrine and Covenants 124*)



> 56 And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding ahouse which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from generation to generation.



Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the actual wording of the D&C seem to state this is "god's" will...let this happen, let this happen, bla bla. It is not "Joseph Smith and his family _will_ posses this house forever..." As if it were a predictive prophecy. It reads more as a command, but commands are not predictions of future events per se; and commands can be broken.

Now, if that was just the only example, no biggy...but, I have been going one by one through these prophecies and I cannot find a single one that doesn't have some level of ambiguity in the actual context that a mormon could not respond to. Basically, it just doesn't read as black and white in the D&C as the Christian critique makes it out to be. That is a little troubling, because of course we would demand of our critiques to be as fair as possible. 

For example...



> In the Pearl of Great Price (PGP), Joseph Smith-History (JSH) 1.40-41, (1823) Smith claimed that the angel Moroni told him that the prophecies in Isaiah 11 were "about to be fulfilled," and that those in Joel 2 were "soon to be" fulfilled. More than 165 years have passed and that interpretation of prophecy has not yet come to pass.



This is a shaky critique if you want to be consistent with a lot of the soon to return passages of the Bible. At any rate, my purpose is to ask whether anyone who has studied this more than I have the "best" example of a D&C prophecy that has failed? I have found some critiques better than others, but not as many as I would have thought. I would prefer to become familiar with one "good" one (since that is all it takes, Deut 18), than spend all my time reading and gaining a general understanding of a lot of ambigous revelations.


----------



## rbcbob (Mar 29, 2012)

What compels you to find such a specific failed prophecy in the scribblings of the enemies of the Lord? The writings, en toto, are by those outside the Covenant of Grace, without warrant by the Spirit of Grace, without authorization from the Mediator of the Covenant.


----------



## Hilasmos (Mar 30, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> What compels you to find such a specific failed prophecy in the scribblings of the enemies of the Lord? The writings, en toto, are by those outside the Covenant of Grace, without warrant by the Spirit of Grace, without authorization from the Mediator of the Covenant.



Because I am not scared to make myself aware of what exists outside of my own faith.

---------- Post added at 07:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 AM ----------

Can you expand upon what you are insinuating in regards to my motivations?


----------



## crimsonleaf (Mar 30, 2012)

You may be better placed, if building a critique of Mormanism, to concentrate on the basis of their faith: who is God; what was he before he became God; who is Jesus; why are all other Christian not representative of the true faith; how do they view the Trinity etc. It seems you are drilling down on the detail while missing the big picture. Concentrating on the nitty-gritty when the whole basis of the faith is so wrongly aligned with ours is making work for yourself and it would appear is causing you to question whether Christians have been unfair in their critique.

On the face of it it looks like you're allowing Satan a shoe-in. Not an accusation; an observation.


----------



## Hilasmos (Mar 30, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> You may be better placed, if building a critique of Mormanism, to concentrate on the basis of their faith: who is God; what was he before he became God; who is Jesus; why are all other Christian not representative of the true faith; how do they view the Trinity etc. It seems you are drilling down on the detail while missing the big picture. Concentrating on the nitty-gritty when the whole basis of the faith is so wrongly aligned with ours is making work for yourself and it would appear is causing you to question whether Christians have been unfair in their critique.
> 
> On the face of it it looks like you're allowing Satan a shoe-in. Not an accusation; an observation.



Well, I assure you, that is not the case. I am simply isolating my question to this one area for the very reasons I noted above -- I am finding Christians utilizing this along side the other theological reasons you noted, but it appears to be one of the weakest elements of their argument. That brings me to my point, I didn't want to spend a lot of time focusing on minor issues and throwing out a bunch of ambigous prophetic critiques like some of this material, when there are better areas to focus on. 

Yet, at the same time, throwing out the "failed prophecy" critique all together doesn't seem necessary; and, in general, it is correlative to everything a critique of mormonism is doing -- showing Joseph Smith is a false prophet that rejects the true word of God. So, in the end, I was not looking for one thing to hang my hat on, but rather trying to major on the majors in this one area of critique -- not to the exclusion of their other erroneous teachings.


----------



## J. Dean (Mar 30, 2012)

http://carm.org/false-prophecies-of-joseph-smith

CARM does a good job with this stuff. I recently did a lecture on Joseph Smith and Mormonism, and CARM had some very good resources.

I don't quite share Bob's concern; we do need to "know our enemy." But you do need to be careful in studying cults that you don't allow yourself to be drawn in too deeply, because it can be very tempting to start saying "Well, I kinda see what they mean about 'X'..." and such.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Mar 30, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> I don't quite share Bob's concern; we do need to "know our enemy." But you do need to be careful in studying cults that you don't allow yourself to be drawn in too deeply, because it can be very tempting to start saying "Well, I kinda see what they mean about 'X'..." and such.



^^ My point.


----------



## Wayne (Mar 30, 2012)

I think what Will has put his finger on is the problem with those Christians who, in their apologetic against Mormonism, fail to be careful and accurate.

If you want to read the research of someone who was quite careful in his accuracy and even-handed in his treatment of Mormons, but always with a view to winning them to faith in Christ alone as Saviour,
I'd recommend checking out the work of the Rev. Wes Walters. It has been said that Walters single-handedly changed the way that even Mormons view their own history.

Wesley P. Walters Collection - Index

If that looks of interest, I do have loads of duplicate materials that I need to disburse and can't bring myself to just toss,
so if anyone wants some of his and or other tracts and pamphlets, I only ask that you cover the cost of postage.


----------



## Zach (Mar 30, 2012)

I was meeting with Mormon missionaries regularly with a brother in Christ earlier this semester. Be VERY careful. I would not venture into the Book of Mormon. Talk about the Bible and what it says. Let them tell you what the Book of Mormon says and then go straight to the Bible. Witnessing to the Mormons is easy because they affirm what is written in our book more than any other cult. Don't dabble in what is not necessary, brother. It is a dark, dark world of lies.


----------



## rbcbob (Mar 30, 2012)

Hilasmos said:


> Can you expand upon what you are insinuating in regards to my motivations?



Will I make no insinuations whatsoever regarding your motivations. I am sorry that it comes across to you that way. My point was not your motivations but rather the logistics of your task. There is nothing of inherent moral wrong in undertaking your search for an epitomizing false prophecy within Mormon writings. But in my view the expenditure of time in such a quest exceeds by far the benefit hoped for.

The Mormons, like every other quasi-Christian claimant of divine truth, is an entity which exists entirely outside the sphere of the historic-redemptive revelation of what God has done and is doing in the history of mankind. They have no place at this table.

The Mormons and their ilk cannot insinuate themselves into that distinct Covenant Community within humanity to whom the one living and true God has made the promises of redemption. To concede to such usurpers any legitimacy at the table and pretend that their anti-covenantal existence be taken seriously is to deny ourselves the unique place we occupy in God’s Covenants. 

The writings which they offer are inimical to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. They are by definition a renunciation of the Covenantal Revelation of the person, work, and redeemed of the Lord Jesus Christ.

My recommendation to all who would contend with any of these alternative explanations of redemptive reality is to hand them the Scriptures and have them show where they are in line with this infallible revelation from the God of all Truth.

“To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isa 8:20 NKJ)


----------



## Hilasmos (Mar 30, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> But in my view the expenditure of time in such a quest exceeds by far the benefit hoped for.



I am not sure how this could be measured; but, ironically, that is pretty much the gist of what I am getting at (except I am not advocating a complete abstinence). Our apologetic becomes less effective when our energies are expended on laundry lists of false prophecies that are ambiguous at best. Further, it creates more ink spilled by mormon-apologists in showing how all the Christians take things out of context. 



Wayne said:


> I think what Will has put his finger on is the problem with those Christians who, in their apologetic against Mormonism, fail to be careful and accurate.



Yes, that is exactly what I was finding, and it really didn't sit well with me. I just read James White's comments on this issue, and he is stating the exact approach I was trying to get at in my OP:



> So my list of false prophecies is considerably shorter than other versions you might have seen. It is not that I don't agree with some of those lists, or feel that they are inaccurate in what they say. I just don't feel it is best to attempt to multiply examples at the cost of the *effectiveness of each individual example*...
> 
> [White then gives an example of a prophecy that could be more easily explained away]
> 
> I don't feel that giving the benefit of the doubt in any way changes the simple fact that there are clear, unambiguous false prophecies in Smith's writings -- in fact, by limiting the list of these prophecies to only those that are clearly errors on Smith's part! strengthen the case. So, in line with this, I shall offer you only two examples of false prophecies by Joseph Smith.




---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------




Zach said:


> I was meeting with Mormon missionaries regularly with a brother in Christ earlier this semester. Be VERY careful. I would not venture into the Book of Mormon. Talk about the Bible and what it says. Let them tell you what the Book of Mormon says and then go straight to the Bible. Witnessing to the Mormons is easy because they affirm what is written in our book more than any other cult. Don't dabble in what is not necessary, brother. It is a dark, dark world of lies.



I totally get this perspective, and some of what Bob is getting at. There is a stigma with cultists, probably having a lot to do with the demonic power and and brain hypnosis that seems to go with it, so it scares us more than reading a book by Richard Dawkins. But, the word "dabbling" carries the conotation of "taking a look to see if it "works."" Of course, under no circumstances should you follow their advice and pray to God to see if this book of Mormon were so. Once that is done, you have already lost, you have questioned the complete and sufficient Word of God. 

Here is the problem as I see it. Their entire approach is to come off sounding exacly like Christians, using the same language as Christians, and affirming exactly what you say. Unless you educate yourself on the differences, they are not going to point them out. That is part of their cultivism, they are not going to start the conversation out saying God used to be a man and exists with flesh and bones.


----------



## Zach (Mar 30, 2012)

Will, believe me if you ask enough pointed questions regarding their ridiculous "gospel" presentation their answers will more than reveal the differences between their beliefs and ours. Preach the true gospel to them, brother. Show them Christ rather than the failed prophecies of their own faith.


----------



## Hilasmos (Mar 30, 2012)

Not sure why you can't do both, Prov. 26:4-5.


----------



## Zach (Mar 30, 2012)

Because it is entirely unnecessary. You can effectively witness to them without reading the Book of Mormon. In fact, the missionaries I met with would read and reference The Book of Mormon. Believe me, you will see enough error in what they share that you won't have to go searching for yourself.


----------



## J. Dean (Mar 30, 2012)

Zach said:


> I was meeting with Mormon missionaries regularly with a brother in Christ earlier this semester. Be VERY careful. I would not venture into the Book of Mormon. Talk about the Bible and what it says. Let them tell you what the Book of Mormon says and then go straight to the Bible. Witnessing to the Mormons is easy *because they affirm what is written in our book more than any other cult.* Don't dabble in what is not necessary, brother. It is a dark, dark world of lies.


Well, I would say the Jehovah's witnesses would profess affirmation at least as high. Not to get off topic, but JWs can be very hard to talk to.


----------



## Zach (Mar 30, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> > I was meeting with Mormon missionaries regularly with a brother in Christ earlier this semester. Be VERY careful. I would not venture into the Book of Mormon. Talk about the Bible and what it says. Let them tell you what the Book of Mormon says and then go straight to the Bible. Witnessing to the Mormons is easy *because they affirm what is written in our book more than any other cult.* Don't dabble in what is not necessary, brother. It is a dark, dark world of lies.
> ...



That is true, I overlooked them. Sorry, Dean.


----------



## J. Dean (Mar 30, 2012)

Zach said:


> That is true, I overlooked them. Sorry, Dean.


No apology necessary. Just say ten Hail Calvins 

Seriously, though, the church history class I'm running has really opened my eyes to a lot of things that I didn't know before. One of them involves the Mormons. At the dedication service of their temple in Ohio in the early nineteenth century, the Mormons went through a sort of "charismatic/pentecostal" euphoria. People were getting visions and revelations, speaking in tongues, and if I recall correctly, there were reports of divine healing associated with Joseph Smith as well. 

Knowing this, then looking back at my time in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements makes me feel very uneasy now...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 30, 2012)

Well, Will’s approach is the same one I use – for both Mormons and JWs. It was Dr. Robert Morey who showed me the use of this approach, in His two books, _How To Answer a Mormon_, and _How to Answer A Jehovah’s Witness_. Basically it is simply this: Show them that their sources of authority – Smith and the other Mormon prophets, as regard Mormons, and the Watchtower Organization, especially its written books and magazines, as regards JWs – contain patently demonstrable falsehoods and failed prophecies. My JW library is much larger than my books on Mormonism (I have dealt with JWs more often), and I think the general Morey approach is excellent.

As much as arguing verse by verse, or concept by concept, is often necessary, to undermine faith in a false prophet by going directly to their own materials, is the beginning of getting them to doubt the whole system, from the foundation on up. I do study the Mormon system, as well the JW, so as to discern how best to “cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). And one must, say as in the case of Mormons, have access to and be able to accurately know and refute their errors. It is not enough – initially at least – to preach the truth to them, for they are armored with error and prejudice against Biblical Christianity. So I have the basic Mormon books, and also a lot of material which are copies of past JW publications as well as their bible including a Greek-English intelinear – to accurately research their errors.

Of course one could just beat them down with the word of God – win the argument – but you likely may not win the soul.

A former Mormon or JW converted to Christ is often a zealous missionary against the cult that had once blinded him or her. I anticipate coming into contact with both of these groups again, as they are present in my new neighborhood. There are wolves in the streets – once the JWs came to my door, but I was just moving in, so I invited them back (they didn’t come) – and I don’t take kindly to wolves roaming unchallenged. My neighborhood is almost entirely Hispanic, and I would sure like a PCA Spanish-speaking church plant here (my congregation is considering where to put one). That would be the best answer – a sound and vital church here!
*
The righteous man wisely considereth the house of the wicked . . . A wise man scaleth the city of the mighty, and casteth down the strength of the confidence thereof.* (Proverbs 21:12a, 22)​


----------



## SolaSaint (Mar 31, 2012)

I am by far not well acquainted with Mormon doctrines, but if my memory (little as I have) is correct, don't the Mormons use the trump card of still receiving prophecies from God to explain away old prohecies. Isn't the Mormon President considered to be the mouth piece for God today for the LDS church?

I agree with another post here about being VERY careful in dabbling in false doctrines. We need to know the TRUTH and proclaim it. I did a lot of research in false beliefs about three years ago and it caused me some great trouble and dark times. Be Careful OP.


----------



## Hilasmos (Mar 31, 2012)

Zach said:


> Because it is entirely unnecessary. You can effectively witness to them without reading the Book of Mormon. In fact, the missionaries I met with would read and reference The Book of Mormon. Believe me, you will see enough error in what they share that you won't have to go searching for yourself.



It may be unecessary in some contexts, but it cannot be "entirely" unncessary. For one, it is not uncessary for the very reason that it is biblically precedented to answer a fool according to his folly. I cannot imagine good apologetic material not dealing with original sources -- that is where this logic takes me. Not that I am trying to reproduce professional apologetic material on the street -- but honest critique is honest critique, no matter how it is given. 

Secondly, this assumes too much on the part of the young mormon missionaries - especially since one of them is probably more of a novice than the other. The assumption is this: they actually know what their church believes and its logical conclusions. Just imagine the circles: the mormon affirms that the Father, Son, and Spirit are ONE. The Christian, having no idea what this means, says huh -- so you mean you don't believe in three gods? Mormon: no, there is only one God existing in three personages. Christian: personages, as in persons? Mormon: yes, there is one God existing in three persons. Christian: huh, so you believe in the trinity? Mormon: well, we do not call it that, but we believe that three persons make up the Godhead, but there is only one God. Christian: huh. Well, what about...[next topic] 

Because of the language barrier, a young Mormon very well may not be able to connect the dots between mormon doctrine and biblical doctrine. You can quote Is. 43:10 until you are blue in the face, and the mormon just says...Amen! In compassion for mormons, I view understanding their doctrine and scripture as a potential means of showing them what LDS actually believe so that they can see the difference. Consider this analogy, there is a young recent convert to a baptist church. The convert is later duped into becoming a mormon, is baptized, and quite frankly cannot see the differences beyond it just being a "different" denomination of Christianity. You arrange to meet with her; how would you approach this? You better believe I would deconstruct every aspect of their teaching, the best I could, to show it for what it is. Explaining their doctrine and its logical conclusions can be a great teaching aid to explaing the true biblical account. 

The last time I talked to mormons the first thing they asked me was if I had read the book of mormon. I had two things going through my mind: for the life of me, I am drawing a blank and cannot differentiate their beliefs from JW's. And, secondly, NO I hadn't read the book of mormon nor was I familiar with virtually anything they call scripture beyond book titles -- so I thought, huh, i am going to sound just like an atheist who critiques the bible while having never read the passage in context. 

Now, I am sure this is a tactic of theirs, and it is effective. They really do not want to get into a long dialogue with a commited protestant; and the way to preface the conversation is to put me in a weak spot...if I say I have not read it but then begin to criticize it, their out is "how can you critize this without even reading it first" (the same argument we use for critiques of the Bible); or, if I say I haven't read it, and because of this, I choose not to critique it, then the conversation is somewhat stifled. Now, I know this could totally be countered without having any need to read the BOM, but frankly, it wasn't until I started studying it more that I know how I would respond now...without even admitting I have read the BOM.

---------- Post added at 10:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------

Lol, forgot to mention, the last time the mormons came by (mentioned above) I was upstairs in my room reading _Van Til's Apologetic_. Unfortunately, there was a not one to one correlation to what I was reading and my effectiveness in speach - i found it quite ironic.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 31, 2012)

Will, I think you highlight an important point. It is quite easy to fall into a tendency where any stick is good enough to beat an enemy with. I think that's contrary to the attitude of Paul, who bore record of the Jews that they had zeal, though not according to knowledge. Mormons, RCs, etc., are deeply wrong on enough broad and clear points that it isn't necessary to take cheap shots or aggravate anything so it's worse than it is. When we won't go the same length as Paul in acknowledging the strong points of our enemies, I think we ultimately wind up weakening our cause.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 31, 2012)

You might find these articles from New Horizons quite helpful. As I recall, and it's been a while since this issue came out, Mormons rarely grasp the full extent of their own sin and therefore, their need for a real savior. That would likely be my starting point for study and discussion.


----------

