The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God


Why stop at the March 1, 1842 Times and Seasons when if you read just a few more issues you find this in the Sept. 15, 1842 edition:

Joseph Smith shared an excerpt from “Stephen’s Incidents of Travel in Central America”. Prefacing the excerpt he said, “Surely – facts are stubborn things”. It will be as it ever has been, the world will prove Joseph Smith a true prophet by circumstantial evidence, in experiments, as they did Moses and Elijah. Now read Stephen’s story:

According to Fuentes, the chronicler of the kingdom of Guatemala, the kings of Quiche and Cachiquel were descended from the Toltecan Indians, who, when they came into this country, found it already inhabited by people of different nations. According to the manuscripts of Don Juan Torres, the grandson of the last king of the Quiches, which was in the possession of the lieutentant general appointed by Pedro de Alvarado, and which Fuentes says he obtained by means of Father Francis Vasquez, the historian after the order of San Francis, the Toltecas themselves descended from the house of Israel, who were released by Moses from the tyranny of Pharoah, and after crossing the Red Sea, fell into idolatry. To avoid the reproofs of Moses, or from fear of his inflicting upon them some chastisement, they separated from him and his brethren, under the guidance of Tanub, their chief, passed from one continent to the other, to a place which they called the seven caverns, a part of the kingdom of Mexico, where they founded the celebrated city of Tula.” (Times and Seasons, Sept. 15, 1842)

Joseph Smith clearly would not have shared the story of another migrant group not mentioned in the Book of Mormon if he thought it threatened the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Looks like the case on this matter is oh so closed…

PS - I like that a Catholic priest is involved, and also that the author of the travel guide is named Stephen. :slight_smile:


He is a false prophet, and Mormonism is a false religion.


Alma 13:9, 10, 14, 18

9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.

10 Now, as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish;

14 Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever.

18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.


Yes, that is pretty cool, except his names was John Lloyd Stephens. After reading Joseph Smith’s full preface of Stephens’ story, it is clear that the purpose of the story was to show Mormons how true the Book of Mormon must be, and that Joseph Smith had to be a prophet. The Toltecas were the remnants of the second race who “are the Indians that now inhabit this country.” The inhabitants they found there were from the first settlement “that came from the tower of Babel.” Just like the Book of Mormon said!! And they all came from the middle east just like Joseph Smith said.

He is not saying these Indians were not of the Book of Mormon. This does not contradict what Joseph Smith has claimed in other sources. In fact, he uses Stephens’ story to reinforce it. Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was about all American Indians, and that is the reason the Mormon Church taught the same thing until science proved it was not true.


Chapter 13 of the Book of Alma talks about a priesthood from God that men of faith and good works would be given. The priesthood was for the purpose of teaching the commandants. This priesthood was from the order of his Son which had no beginning or end. This priesthood would allow you to rest with God and not perish. This priesthood order will be the type of order or the order that Christ will have, so we should look forward to him for the remission of sins. Therefore, men should humble themselves like Melchizedek did, and like the people of his day did, so they can rest with God.

Then we are told about Melchizedek. He was the same Melchizedek who received Abraham’s tithe. He was the King of Salem and his people were wicked. But Melchizedek was good, so he received God’s priesthood. He established peace in the land, so was called the prince of peace. He ruled under his father. There were plenty of men with God’s priesthood before and after him. We only mention his name because he was a great man.

Alma tells this story to tell his people that now is the time to repent, so you don’t perish.

I don’t see anything about a Melchizedek Priesthood. Nor any priesthood which gives authority to do anything but maybe teach the commandments. At one point he seems to say, like the Bible, that it is a special priesthood which prefigures Christ, but them he says it is no big deal; everybody who is good had it. It seems like a story about a need for repentance with some Bible phrases thrown in to make it sound better.

I do see how Joseph Smith points to this Chapter in D&C when he invented the Melchizedek Priesthood a few years later.

I still haven’t seen a Mormon try to prove the Melchizedek Priesthood from the Bible.


They can’t prove it, Stephen168. And they know it. That’s why they won’t even try.


Yes, and that would be step One in claiming Joseph Smith received the Melchizedek Priesthood; prove there was ever such a thing.



I looked up the September 15, 1842 edition of Times and Seasons at the BYU library website:

I cannot find the extract from Stephens’ Incidents of Travel in Central America as you have it mentioned in your post. There is an extract, just not the one that you mention. Perhaps it is in a different edition?


Asking LDS to prove it is evidence of bald polemics or profound misunderstanding (probably both).

Catholics cannot prove there is a priesthood of the son of God. Just like LDS cannot prove there is a priesthood of the son of God that we call the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Of course Catholic apologist Mark Shea claims that Catholic priests hold the “Melchizedek Priesthood,” and Stephen’s original Protestant claim that the priesthood discussed in Hebrews was unique and only held by Christ invalidates all of Catholicism.

And that is really my point. The attacks offered by Stephen and celebrated by you decimate Catholic truth claims. Stephen gets all offended when I point it out, but it is just true.

In one respect the least parsimonious thing that could possible exist is God, so ALL explanations for ALL events are to be preferred to “God did it.” Stephen and you celebrate that fact that secular scholarship rejects, “God did it” when applied to LDS claims, but neglect to acknowledge that secular scholarship rejects “God did it” when applied to Catholic claims just as readily.

Empirical evidence appears 1-5 years after the purported event that shows that LDS acted like they believed Peterine authority passed to Joseph Smith and claimed that Peterine authority passed to Joseph Smith.

Empirical evidence is absent for >150 years concerning Catholics acting like the Bishop or Rome has Peterine authority or Catholics claiming the Bishop or Rome has Peterine authority. And we have evidence that neither the Bishop or Rome nor any other person in the local church knew of this extraordinary claim.

Empirical evidence of authority cannot exist, but what can exist supports LDS truth claims and refutes the ORIGINAL Catholic truth claims. So Catholicism has changed what they claim see, Newman, Sullivan, and Eno. LDS make changes too, but nothing so dramatic as denying the common idea that Peter specifically selected his successor, that is the change Catholics were FORCED to make because evidence refuted it.

No proof for either. Problems for both. Bigger problems for Catholic truth claims IMO.

Charity, TOm


Joseph Smith claimed to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. You use that claim as the truth of Mormon authority. Yet, you cannot prove there was ever such a thing as the Melchizedek Priesthood. The Catholic Church has absolutely nothing to do with Joseph Smith’s and your claim. Yet, you post over and ever about the Catholic Church wa wa wa waaaaa. I’ve never been offended. I think it is humorous. You writing long posts over and over with absolutely no attempt to prove there ever was a Melchizedek Priesthood.

Every time you post, and not attempt to prove there was a Melchizedek Priesthood, the more I know I am right.


Tom has a problem with where Christ’s authority was in 130 AD in the Catholic Church, but not the fact that there was no Mormon Church in 130 AD. Instead he relies on the claims of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery 1700 years later. Claims which can not be supported by science or history. The key claim which is the subject of this thread is his claim to have received a priesthood which is not biblically based. It is a priesthood he invented 4-5 years after he founded his new religion.


I said I couldn;t “prove” that there was a Melchizedek Priesthood. It is impossible. You cannot prove that there is a priesthood of the Son of God OR that said priesthood is exercised by Catholics priests. That is my point. Pretty simple.
Charity, TOm


The Catholic teaching on this is that Jesus Christ is the one and only high priest, but that He extends this priesthood to certain men He ordains to become ministerial priests, while all the baptized Christian faithful have been baptized into Christ as part of the royal priesthood.

In Galatians 2:20, St. Paul writes:

I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

The words “crucified with Christ” appear to reference Romans 6:4: “For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism.”

So being “crucified with Christ” refers to baptism, which removes original sin and imparts sanctifying grace; through baptism we are incorporated into the visible Body of Christ. Therefore, Christ “lives in us”, and extends His priesthood to all the baptized.

So no, the idea that Christ’s priesthood is unique doesn’t “invalidate all of Catholicism.”


Mormons can not prove what they claim, and Catholics can not prove what they don’t claim.

It is irrational to ask someone to prove something they don’t claim or compare them to something that is claimed.

Mormons can not prove there was a Melchizedek Priesthood. Yet, Joseph Smith claimed he received it…4-5 years later. It is this claim that Mormons use to believe that they have apostolic authority. So there is no proof of authority in Mormonism.


It is on Page 922. click on the Facts are stubborn things link


I know there are other circumstance when a couple may live as brother & sister with pastoral counsel, but the concept I was refuting was that the Eucharist is available for ALL people in an irregular marriage including SSM.


I am not sure you got through all the ins-and-outs of this thread. This particular line of discussion IN MY MIND goes like this.
Stephen first claimed:

Some responses happened and I summarized here, including what you pointed to in your response (and I used the commonly quoted phrase from Aquinas):

Father David who posted earlier in this thread IMO made a compelling argument that calling Christ’s priesthood held by Catholic priests, “Melchizedek Priesthood,” is inappropriate. I agreed with him in light of Catholic Tradition. The Bible has lead a Catholic priest to claim that Catholic priests are priests in the “Order of Melchizedek” and Catholic apologist Mark Shea to speak of the “Melchizedek Priesthood.” I believe this is done because it is a solid way of reading Hebrews.
So, it is my position that when Stephen claimed the priesthood of Christ “only belongs to Christ” and therefore LDS cannot claim a priesthood discussed in Hebrews, he is using a Protestant argument that has been offered against Catholicism for years.
Charity, TOm


So, you do not claim (believe in) "there is a priesthood of the Son of God OR that said priesthood is exercised by Catholics priests."
There are “Catholics” who reject all that is supernatural, they do not believe the Eucharist is LITERALLY the body, blood, soul, and divinity of God the son. I have no interest in being such a Catholic and I do not compare my faith to such a “Catholic” faith because I see little ot no value in such a "faith."
Do you claim “there is a priesthood of the Son of God OR that said priesthood is exercised by Catholics priests?” Yes or No.
Can you prove such claims?
Charity, TOm


Did Stephen168 help you find it? I was using the book “Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith” (Deseret Book, 1976) as my reference on pages 266, 267. I haven’t had time to look at the link.


Dorothea Therese and Father David correctly explained what I meant. Your interpretation (therefore LDS cannot claim a priesthood discussed in Hebrews) was incorrect. Mormons claim a lot of stuff, but can’t prove it. The Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is not discussed in Hebrews because it is not discussed in Hebrews.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit