Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,728 Excellent

About Ahab

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would not say that I speak for God to them. I would simply share with them what God had told me, leaving them to find out from God for themselves. I would understand if they didn't want to just take my word for what God said. But that wouldn't stop me from telling them what God had told me, either, if I felt God wanted me to share my knowledge of things with them. From my point of view what I would be telling them was what God had told me, and no counsel from God, correctly understood, can lead people away from God. I would just need to be sure that God had told me what I was saying God had told me. Otherwise I would be in big trouble with God for misrepresenting him. As would you, or anyone else.
  2. What I said was not what you said I said and called a circular definition but I let your incorrect labeling pass thinking you knew had understood what I said. Now I'm not so sure if you correctly understand what a prophet of God really is. "knowing when the prophet is acting as a prophet" .does not mean the same thing as "knowing when a man is acting as a prophet"... so if you don't know when a man is speaking as a prophet then why on Earth would you call that man a prophet? You seem to have 2 different ideas in your mind while you think they mean the same thing.
  3. If everyone in the Church said God rejected that, though? It would be impressive to see that many people in agreement but you're right it still wouldn't necessarily mean that God rejects it. God rejects only what God rejects, and God's rejection isn't dependent upon how many people agree with him, or how many don't, either. I don't suppose it would suit your purposes if I told you that God has told me that he abhors abominations and that people of the same sex having sexual relations of a particular kind with each other is an abomination of how they should act with each other, so I see no good reason to tell you that now.
  4. No captioning and few words. I prefer text with no sound when I peruse the net while at my job. I watched the first 2 minutes of it and was not impressed. That video is not something I am interested in.
  5. Correct. It is simple, isn't it. Only when a man acts as a prophet of God is he truly a prophet of God. Anybody should be able to understand that. Now the question becomes: HOW can YOU tell when a man is acting as a prophet of God? The method that has been encouraged by most if not all of the leaders of the Church, past and present, is that each of us should obtain a personal testimony from God to assure us when and if a man has acted or is acting as a prophet of God, with that assurance coming to us from God through the power of the Holy Ghost. Some have said things like: Follow the Prophet, or "when the prophet speaks, obey" or something like that but that kind of encouragement helps only if we already know who and what a prophet of God really is. Of course we should follow prophets! That's basically the same as follow God, himself, since it is God who is speaking through his prophets, when and if God chooses to speak through another man. The real work is in finding out when a man is speaking as a prophet, and if you correctly understand WHAT a prophet is, and HOW TO FIND OUT when and if a man is speaking as a prophet of God, isn't not too terribly hard to do that kind of work
  6. Yes, you now seem to have a correct understanding of what I have been saying. I would prefer to say a "man" is acting as a prophet only when he is acting as a prophet, though, because when that man is not acting as a prophet I would not be referring to him as a prophet.
  7. I expect a man to act as a prophet of God only when he is acting as prophet of God. I don't think that is too much to expect. At any other time that man is simply acting as a man. Probably still a pretty good man, but not perfect when he is not acting or speaking as God would.
  8. Now I am not sure when you're saying. What would a God be if not the true God? A false God, I would suppose, therefore not really a true God. So no there would be no God who would accept gay marriage if the true God doesn't accept it.
  9. Yes, many times, even when they were (I've liked during the lives of many prophets) were simply repeating what other prophets of God had already said. Keep in mind how I defined what a prophet of God really is. I don't memorize as much as internalize what I hear from prophets of God but in genera it is anytime God has helped me to know when other men were speaking through the power of the Holy Ghost. Too many times to remember but during at least some of most of the times I have ever heard them say something, even during some times when they were being funny.
  10. Wrong answer but I'll give you credit for giving your own personal opinion anyway. Any man who shares the mind and will of God, when he is actually doing that, is infallible when he is speaking for God because it is as if God is speaking himself, which he is through that man he has inspired. This isn't rocket science. The question of WHAT a prophet of God is should be one you should be able to answer correctly, and the correct answer to WHEN a man is speaking as a prophet is simply when he actually is.
  11. Anyone who knows what a prophet is and whether or not Brigham was inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost can answer that question correctly, and the correct answer is yes. Spencer didn't call what Brigham said false doctrine. Spencer was referring to misrepresentations of what Brigham said by people who didn't correctly understand what Brigham meant when he said what he said. At any rate, the main point I was trying to make is that anyone who knows what a prophet of God is.. any man who speaks the mind and will of God... and is also able to tell through the power of the Holy Ghost WHEN a man is speaking as a prophet of God should have no problem at all discerning when a man is speaking as a prophet of God. And until such time as you know it, yourself, you are on better grounds to simply question whether or not someone was than to say that man was speaking as a prophet when you don't know for yourself whether he was or not!
  12. Because he is, as all prophets are. But the man who sometimes acts as a prophet is not infallible. That man is infallible only when he acts as a prophet does.
  13. So far so good. So when is a prophet acting as a prophet doing what prophets do? Or to make it a better phrased question, when is a man acting as a prophet of God doing what prophets do? And we all know what prophets do, I hope. And here we hit it, again. When is a man acting as a prophet of God to reveal the mind and will of the Lord? Only when that man actually is doing what prophets do, correct? And no that is not just anytime that man opens his mouth to say something, or whenever he writes something down. That is evidence that man has said something but how are you supposed to know when that man is acting as a prophet of God? I've already told you numerous times and still I hold out some hope that you will finally get it, eventually.
  14. Okay, we disagree. Not an uncommon thing among Church members. I see blessings as blessings and not privileges we are automatically entitled to by virtue of simply being a member of our Lord's true church.
  15. And which way do YOU think the Church uses the term? As a reference to someone who really is or has spoken for God through the power of God, or as someone who is simply referred to as a prophet even when he really isn't speaking for God?
  • Create New...