John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 A simplistic way of noting. Just look at CoC...RLDS. The D&C continuing to grow each Administration.A point in their favor as far as that goes.Really, what is the use of a prophet who doesn't prophesy?It's sort of like having an air condition that doesn't condition the air.When we encounter items that do not live up to their label, which generally conclude they are either turned off or broken.
John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 Why would you interpret what PaPa said in that way. Because it is the logical inference from what he said.Just because modern prophets aren't as open about their revelations and miracles doesn't mean they aren't happening. This is an argument from silence and has no merit.It is also completely at odds with Joseph Smith who was anything but shy about sharing his revelations. I believe his words were that he had always taught the strong doctrines openly.
Deborah Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 From LDS.org on prophets:Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God's will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.
John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) For me, I have concluded that some questions will never be answered. I accept that as a reality of this mortal life. I appreciate your thoughtful comments, Storm Rider.And I believe you are correct that some questions will never be answered for any of us.And yet, there exists a sizeable body of questions that we may know, only not within the limits we have set for answers we consider acceptable.In other words, each of us has a world view within which we seek to harmonize information. If information does not fit within our world view, we have three options: (1) We can ignore it; (2) We can twist the information to force it to fit into our world view; or, (3) We can alter out world view.Kevin Christensen, I believe, has done some excellent work on this issue.The Book of Mormon (which for the record I consider an inspired text) also contains a profound psychological insight from Amulek who says to Alma that he had always known concerning these things, and yet he refused to know.How can one know something but refuse to know it?See numbers one and two above. Edited July 4, 2012 by John Ping Pong
Deborah Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 It is also completely at odds with Joseph Smith who was anything but shy about sharing his revelations. I believe his words were that he had always taught the strong doctrines openly.Not true. He was very shy about even talking about the first vision to his family until he was commanded to do so. He talked openly about those things necessary for the restoration of the church. He was very reluctant to talk about plural marriage and at first only shared it with certain individuals. Even after Section 132 was given he rarely spoke of it publicly. It was for Brigham Young, safe in the Rocky Mountains to openly discuss it. There were many revelations Joseph Smith received which he did not share because the people weren't ready or able to receive them.
John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 I wonder what would be an acceptable revelation to receive for today's church. Remember Joseph's statement about the people-- that they 'shatter like glass' . We got all in a huff about the suggestion to have just one set of earrings. I'm afraid that for many " you can't handle the truth" fits.Another argument from silence.No revelations are forthcoming because the LDS simply couldn't handle them.And so God is reduced to giving fashion tips.Or ensuring that a five-dollar bill makes it through the wet-wash.Or miraculously making a quarter appear by the side of the road so a hungry medical student can buy some chicken.How menial.
John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 Not true. You do realize you are arguing not with me on this issue, but with Joseph Smith?
Deborah Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 You do realize you are arguing not with me on this issue, but with Joseph Smith?Obviously you didn't read the rest of what I said. That is an example of seeing but refusing to see.
John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 Most I hear want revelation not about something else for us to do, like build more temples, but new doctrinal teaching. Doesn't require us to change our lives at all, but we will feel wiser, more knowledgeable, special in this knowledge.The modern LDS Church has successfully convinced its members that the only important teachings are homilies about what we should do.This was not Joseph Smith's way. He understood that what we do is inextricably bound up with what we know and what we believe.While many of his revelations were commandments to individuals regarding missions and other temporal concerns, by far the most famous revelations dealt with almost purely doctrinal matters.Such as sections 20, 76, 93, 88, and 107; the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. The Book of Mormon also comes to mind.And Joseph Smith always left the door open to seeking further light and knowledge, condemning those who would set up stakes and say, "Hitherto shalt thou come and no further."
John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 Obviously you didn't read the rest of what I said. That is an example of seeing but refusing to see.Naturally.
John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 From LDS.org on prophets:Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God's will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.I am gratified to see that LDS prophets fit the definition of LDS prophets provided by LDS prophets.
mrmandias Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Thomas S. Monson is the prophet of God. My belief rests on Holy Ghost.
Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Have you studied the Old and New Testament and the role of prophets there?
Deborah Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 I am gratified to see that LDS prophets fit the definition of LDS prophets provided by LDS prophets.Me too, because it fits the profile of prophets in the Old Testament.
ERayR Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Are you saying President Monson is a prophet precisely because he does not receive revelation as did Joseph Smith?Millions qualify using that test.Joseph Smith's calling was unique in this dispensation in that he was called to restore the gospel, setup the organization to carry it forward allowing for future growth. He did that well. Thomas Monson's calling is to shepherd the church and make course corrections as needed. It is not that he does not receive revelation. It is that he dispenses it in a different way. Precisely, Joseph Smith said he longed for the day when every priesthood holder was a prophet in his own right. It's just that the millions have received only callings as prophets in the church and not received the calling as prophet for the church.
Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Kevin Christensen, I believe, has done some excellent work on this issue.He has also done some excellent works on prophets, IIRC (there are a number of Kevin's and there is a slight chance I am thinking of another of them). You should read that as well.
John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 Me too, because it fits the profile of prophets in the Old Testament.Ah yes, the very image of Elijah in his corporate business suit.
John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 Joseph Smith's calling was unique in this dispensation in that he was called to restore the gospel, Another thread-bare excuse promulgated by prophets who receive no revelation as an excuse for receiving no revelation.
ERayR Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) Even non-members have hailed Joseph Smith as a great man, and some as the most influential American who ever lived. Other non-members have claimed Joseph Smith to be a "prophet" and even a "religious genius."This is all based on the objective evidence of what he did. President Monson has no such objective evidence, and I see nobody who has responded so far disagreeing in this.Joseph Smith seemed to attract men and women of a similar temperament and character.Where are our Joseph Smith's? Was Joseph Smith really for only one time and place, or do you think there might be something inherent in the LDS organization that prevents new Smiths from emerging?Is this perhaps what Hugh Nibley called the "fatal shift" from Leadership to Management?You seem to think that to be a prophet one must part the seas or the rivers or organize churches. A prophet reveals the mind and will of God. It apears that right now isn't the time that God wants any seas parted. When the time comes whatever prophet is there will part the sea.He just wont do it because you think he should. Edited July 4, 2012 by ERayR 2
Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 KC's article: http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Is it based on what he has done or said, or merely on the position he holds?If you do not understand what a Prophet's role and task is -- you will produce such posts as this, evidence of your confusion. I believe you would have been more on the mark had you asked "Is Thomas Monson a Seer"?
Deborah Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Ah yes, the very image of Elijah in his corporate business suit.Oh, so you expect modern prophets to be wearing robes and sandals and long beards? Interesting. I guess if you are wearing the dress of the day you can't be a prophet because it doesn't fit some preconceived image.
ERayR Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Deborah, I understand some of your reasoning from above and to the faithful I can understand how many would accept that and move forward. However, when speaking to those who's faith is challenged such a response can ring hollow at best. For example, since Joseph's time we have so very few new revelations added to the Standard Works to make one almost believe that the heavens were closed to new revelation for the Church at large.The very purpose of having an open canon is that new scripture would be added to it. When little or nothing is added it is easy to question why not.Years ago, decades, I had asked myself the same question, "where are the new revelations from prophets, seers, and revelators?" I never really found an answer that satisfied me, but I just moved on. When we don't find answers that really answer the question, rather we push it to the back, it is possible that we begin a road of apostasy. One unanswered question pushed aside becomes another unanswered question; before you know it you have many unanswered questions. Then one day another question comes to the fore and it cannot be pushed aside and you cannot move forward. It is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.Spiritual experiences are not the same as receiving revelation for the Church. All people, regardless of their calling, hold sacred experiences close and do not readily share them. This is not the same as a prophet that leads the Church of Jesus Christ receiving a revelation. We cannot parade one as the other; it dishonors everything involved.For me, I have concluded that some questions will never be answered. I accept that as a reality of this mortal life. The moment I begin to think that I require a specific set of knowledge or I will not move forward any farther is the moment that I choose to enter into personal apostasy; I choose to believe in my arm of flesh rather than rely upon the Holy Spirit and in my Father in Heaven. This path leads to unhappiness and a broken heart. It is always our choice.Why are you waiting for the prophet/church leaders to answer your questions. They are your questions and you are entitled to personal revelation. Go to work and get your answers. From personal experience don't expect them to come full blown and final just for the asking. It will require lots of work, study, prayer and meditation and they come piece by piece. Just don't get impatient. 1
ERayR Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Not true. He was very shy about even talking about the first vision to his family until he was commanded to do so. He talked openly about those things necessary for the restoration of the church. He was very reluctant to talk about plural marriage and at first only shared it with certain individuals. Even after Section 132 was given he rarely spoke of it publicly. It was for Brigham Young, safe in the Rocky Mountains to openly discuss it. There were many revelations Joseph Smith received which he did not share because the people weren't ready or able to receive them.And we have no idea how much he never talked about to anybody.
ERayR Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 The modern LDS Church has successfully convinced its members that the only important teachings are homilies about what we should do.This was not Joseph Smith's way. He understood that what we do is inextricably bound up with what we know and what we believe.While many of his revelations were commandments to individuals regarding missions and other temporal concerns, by far the most famous revelations dealt with almost purely doctrinal matters.Such as sections 20, 76, 93, 88, and 107; the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. The Book of Mormon also comes to mind.And Joseph Smith always left the door open to seeking further light and knowledge, condemning those who would set up stakes and say, "Hitherto shalt thou come and no further."I hope you take great comfort on your ability to subtly mock what you seem not to understand. It would, in my experience, be ever so much more satisfying to actually attempt to understand that which you mock. 2
Recommended Posts