No Prophet Is Perfect

[Zakuska]

If the prophet has the Keys of the Kingdom, the same given to the prophet Peter,

then I'll trust that prophet to be of the Lord.

You mean... Peter the Prevaricator

[urroner]

But then again, you failed to answer my question roman. What follies and weaknesses did that ancient apostles and prophets have and how did they compare to those of Joseph Smith?

Well, unless I missed it, I didn't see an answer to this question. I just find it interesting that the critics of the Church are so quick to find fault with modern day prophets, but they fail to hold ancient prophets and apostles to the same standard.

[Ron Beron]

Don't you think that getting upset and throwing something is different that introducing false doctrine? I haven't read a critic's post which points out some "heat of the moment" mistake by Joseph Smith. The perceived mistakes are usually things like polygamy, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc.

You are making an assumption and a big one at that that these "mistakes" were false doctrine and not revealed scripture, aren't you? Given the fact that "orthodox" Christianity has followed a doctrine that is more or less inspired by Greek philosophy and hence tantamount to being false doctrine in and of itself I can see where you would consider the restored beliefs of JS as false. If JS did make mistakes it was as a man and not as a revealer of God's word nor more or less than those of anciently.

[urroner]

Thats is a hebreaism for the type of communication they had. Moses did not set and talk with a god called the father made of flesh and bone.

CFR that this is a Hebraism and that it means what you said it means.

[Pahoran]

Don't you think that getting upset and throwing something is different that introducing false doctrine? I haven't read a critic's post which points out some "heat of the moment" mistake by Joseph Smith. The perceived mistakes are usually things like polygamy, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc.

Quick, what's that that just went whizzing by my window?

Oh, it's the goal posts. Someone catch them, quick!

Er, "Thinking?" You defined the parameters of the discussion when you couched it in terms of "imperfections." The items you now mention--polygamy, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc--are not "imperfections." They are doctrinal questions which believers believe, and which unbelievers, like you, do not. And if you just this once try to live up to your name and actually think--again, just this once--you might realise that that's sort of what is going to separate believers from unbelievers. Really. Believers believe in a certain set of events or propositions, and unbelievers do not.

Now it happens that it is just possible that these things are true; your inability to grasp that possibility does not mean it isn't so. Now if in fact these things are true, then they are not "imperfections."

Get it yet?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bach]

I don't believe that there's been a satisfactory answer to the question posed by this thread. Shame, too, considering that without one, there's no reason for people who subscribe to a particular religion to hold their own prophets in higher regard than they do prophets of other faith traditions.

So what is it, guys? What makes the LDS apostles different from the zillions of other people who have claimed to be prophets chosen by some supernatural being?

[urroner]

So what is it, guys? What makes the LDS apostles different from the zillions of other people who have claimed to be prophets chosen by some supernatural being?

Ours are true and theirs ain't. Can't any more simple than that.

[Bach]

Okay. Let me rephrase.

Why are they better? What about them makes it so? How are they better?

[urroner]

Okay. Let me rephrase.

Why are they better? What about them makes it so? How are they better?

They have the priesthood or the authority to act in God's name and the others don't.

[Ron Beron]

Okay. Let me rephrase.

Why are they better? What about them makes it so? How are they better?

Many are chosen by man while others are chosen by God. I would go so far as to state that there are many non-LDS prophets out there such as Billy Graham and perhaps even Mohammed.

[Zakuska]

The very fact that we have them and No others do.

Ie did not Christ setup his church with 12 Apostles/Prophets etc etc etc.

It's also my understanding that the Last Prophet for Christians was John the Baptist. At least thats what many of them have told me through the years.

[Bach]

They have the priesthood or the authority to act in God's name and the others don't.

How do you know this? By what standard are they judged to actually hold the authority? If they were charlatans, how could we know?

The very fact that we have them and No others do.

Ie did not Christ setup his church with 12 Apostles/Prophets etc etc etc.

It's also my understanding that the Last Prophet for Christians was John the Baptist. At least thats what many of them have told me through the years.

How can you be sure that Jesus was who He said He was, if He indeed said what is commonly attributed to Him, and if He existed at all?

[Zakuska]

How do you know this? By what standard are they judged to actually hold the authority? If they were charlatans, how could we know?

Joseph Smith held the Petegree to the Throne of Israel. The Priesthood was Rightfully his by birthright.

How can you be sure that Jesus was who He said He was, if He indeed said what is commonly attributed to Him, and if He existed at all?

How do you know that YOU exist at all? That you are not some how caught in the matrix?

[Bach]

What are you, thirteen? Come on, man.

[Zakuska]

No... more like seven.

[Bach]

Okay, enough stalling -- answer the simple question:

On what grounds can we say that person who claims to be a prophet is in fact nothing of the sort?

[Tchild2]

Okay, enough stalling -- answer the simple question:

On what grounds can we say that person who claims to be a prophet is in fact nothing of the sort?

When that person is the "prophet" in another, competing religion. Then, it is easy to discern a false prophet. It is impossible for a member to look within their own religion and make such a distinction. Such is the circular reinforcement that leaders create to confirm their own divine status.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Before I answer, is it ok to ask you a question, Bach? How would you be convinced that God exists, and that he has called a prophet, and what would that prophet do and what would he be like?

How about based on Bilbical precedent? You don't, to my knowledge, believe the Bible, but how can we differentiate from one who was called of God and one who acted as though they were and yet were not, such as the sons of Sceva?

When that person is the "prophet" in another, competing religion. Then, it is easy to discern a false prophet. It is impossible for a member to look within their own religion and make such a distinction. Such is the circular reinforcement that leaders create to confirm their own divine status.

This is a little shortsighted.

OK, massively shortsighted.

[Bach]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so I guess my minimum standards for believing in God would closely mimic the ones Bertrand Russell gave over half a century ago:

I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence.

I would forever be plagued by doubts, though, because I'd have no way of knowing that my evidence for the existence of a particular conception of God, however compelling, wasn't merely an attempt by a evil superhuman intelligence to trick me into believing falsehoods.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so I guess my minimum standards for believing in God would closely mimic the ones Bertrand Russell gave over half a century ago:

I would forever be plagued by doubts, though, because I'd have no way of knowing that my evidence for the existence of a particular conception of God, however compelling, wasn't merely an attempt by a evil superhuman intelligence to trick me into believing falsehoods.

Why are you appealing to a prophet of your own? I'd like to see you answer the question.

[Bach]

I'm not appealing to a prophet of my own. I just happen to agree with Mr. Russell, and am too lazy to type up my own iteration of the test he's outlined.

[jason e.]

I'm not appealing to a prophet of my own. I just happen to agree with Mr. Russell, and am too lazy to type up my own iteration of the test he's outlined.

bach,

your very simple and to the point questions ar great and i appriciate them. indeed it is a shame how this great question has been topsy turvied on you.

please someone give an intelligent response (even if we dont agree with it. we caould at least say that that is an alright response).

so when it all comes down to it, the question becomes, fine, how can we tell if the person is a FALSE PROPHET?

also, i think it should be noted that the idea of even a "fallen" prophet is troublesome, because why do you chooes the polygamy as wrong? what is your canon for that? why that one, why not sealings, or bap for the dead... besides your culture what is it that makes polygamy wrong?

god said if someone made a prophecy and it didnt come to pass, then they are not to be feard, a false prophet, thats it, done, 1 false prophecy equals one false prophet. like once someone murders soemone elsecin cold blood, doesnt matter how many lives they may save before or after, they are indeed a MURDER.

and what about the canadian prophecy to sell the bom up there? joe smith, acording to whitmer, tells us it was of the DEVIL. and then we learn some prophices are of the devil, some of men, and some of god... so how can we tell the difference?

[Zakuska]

god said if someone made a prophecy and it didnt come to pass, then they are not to be feard, a false prophet, thats it, done, 1 false prophecy equals one false prophet. like once someone murders soemone elsecin cold blood, doesnt matter how many lives they may save before or after, they are indeed a MURDER.

You mean like Moses and Paul?

and what about the canadian prophecy to sell the bom up there? joe smith, acording to whitmer, tells us it was of the DEVIL. and then we learn some prophices are of the devil, some of men, and some of god... so how can we tell the difference?

Well the first way we can tell...

1 Jn. 4: 2-3

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 Jn. 1: 7

7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Joseph Smith infatically declared... even to the point of claiming he had SEEN the living Lord in the Flesh and Bones. So we know he was no deciever or antichrist according to the Bible.

[Thinking]

Er, "Thinking?" You defined the parameters of the discussion when you couched it in terms of "imperfections." The items you now mention--polygamy, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc--are not "imperfections." They are doctrinal questions which believers believe, and which unbelievers, like you, do not. And if you just this once try to live up to your name and actually think--again, just this once--you might realise that that's sort of what is going to separate believers from unbelievers. Really. Believers believe in a certain set of events or propositions, and unbelievers do not.

Would making a doctrinal mistake make a prophet not perfect? Yes. So then incorrect doctrine would be an "imperfection."

Posts like the following are the reason I started this thread.

I guess what some of us are getting at with the whole polyandry thing is that the Lord did not instruct JS in this matter, this one must have came from him. He made a mistake, got a little carried away, perhaps let things go to his head a bit. I think that is much easier to rationalize and come to terms with. Definately easier than playing all sorts of mind games trying to figure out how or why polyandry fits into the restored gospel.

Haven't we said somewhere on this board that the Nauvoo era polygamy/polyandry was proto-polygamy which basically means it wasn't the correct principle. The correct principle came later with Brigham Young.

We can all agree that JS was a man, even an imperfect man. With that in mind it does not make it impossible that he may have just gone out on a limb here and acted as a man instead of as a prophet. We also believe that a prophet can act as a man or as a prophet and when he acts as a man he is not necessarily following the way of the Lord.

I'm not saying that he wasn't a prophet, I'm just saying he wasn't perfect. (gitxsanartist, Jan. 7, 2007)

Now what were you saying?

Now it happens that it is just possible that these things are true...

It happens to be possible that they are not true.

...your inability to grasp that possibility does not mean it isn't so.

Actually, my ability to grasp the possibility that "these things" may or may not be true helped me to be more objective when I began to research and study.

Now if in fact these things are true, then they are not "imperfections."

And if they are not true, then they are imperfections.

So now I will ask you a simple question. In your opinion, has any of the LDS prophets made a doctrinal mistake?

Get it yet?

Yes I do, even though you think I don't.

[LifeOnaPlate]

bach,

your very simple and to the point questions ar great and i appriciate them. indeed it is a shame how this great question has been topsy turvied on you.

please someone give an intelligent response (even if we dont agree with it. we caould at least say that that is an alright response).

It is a great question. Please demonstrate, by bach's assessment, where Jesus Christ proved Himself a prophet by doing as Bach would like.

As far as an intelligent response goes, we are trying to keep things as near a "jason e." level as we can.

so when it all comes down to it, the question becomes, fine, how can we tell if the person is a FALSE PROPHET?

Or, how can we discern a TRUE PROPHET also works.

Also "how can we tell if a person doesn't know where to find the "shift" key?

god said if someone made a prophecy and it didnt come to pass, then they are not to be feard, a false prophet, thats it, done, 1 false prophecy equals one false prophet. like once someone murders soemone elsecin cold blood, doesnt matter how many lives they may save before or after, they are indeed a MURDER.

CFR, and please give your interpretation of the verses again.