Damien the Leper Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Joseph Smith thought it was. ”It is said by Paul in his letter to the Hebrew brethren, that Abel obtained witness that he was righteous” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 59). If Tony is wrong, then he is in good company.JS was wrong and he knows it now. End of story.
Damien the Leper Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) Thx for the tip.I was adding credence to the post citing Jared Anderson as a resource. Jared is one of Ehrman's students. Edited October 24, 2015 by Valentinus
CV75 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 1. It is impossible to know what revelation has been received or not received. Assuming God spoke without evidence strikes me as the much more dangerous practice than assuming he didn't, lest we believe every sagebrush prophet out there. That is why faith (evidence or assurance) is the first principle of the Gospel. 2. Contradiction - a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present., the statement of a position opposite to one already made.Not too hard to spot.God says do what I say. We stop doing what he said. Contradiction.God frequently changes His commandments but still never contradicts who He Is. I think this is why the Lord has said that given the opportunity, we would see the prophets of prior times and circumstances (and dispensations) in the same light and treat them in the same way we treat those of our own.
Tony Frank Posted October 24, 2015 Author Posted October 24, 2015 Nice opinion. Now back it up. Testimony is insufficient. I will not "back up: my knowledge that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet anymore than I will back up my knowledge that God exists and that Jesus is the Christ. Those who reject such knowledge are the ones with an "opinion," but they will change their "opinion" when they stand before the judgment bar of Jesus Christ.
Damien the Leper Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 I will not "back up: my knowledge that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet anymore than I will back up my knowledge that God exists and that Jesus is the Christ. Those who reject such knowledge are the ones with an "opinion," but they will change their "opinion" when they stand before the judgment bar of Jesus Christ.This is fairly arrogant and highly opinionated. You're not making much of a good argument for your case. Let's simplify a little.Just because [insert prophet here] says that Joseph said something who in turn says that God said the same thing is unreasonable. That's like playing telephone. Transmission is going to get distorted at some point. That's reality.
CV75 Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 New Primary Song: Faith, not doubtIs what it’s all aboutSo Alfie get off itAnd follow the prophet. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 I agree with you completely, but how do you prove it beyond stating it repeatedly?The obvious answer is by their fruits I suppose, but lots of people produce good fruits.For example, I know Gerald W. Peterson, Jr. personally. Very good and humble man, leading people that are some of the best people I know. If having the option to fellowship with his church or any other group/church of Saints I have met on my journey- I would pick them hands-down. But since Fundamentalism isn't my thing anymore, I just try to put up with what I got.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 With the three ways to get the word of God, (scriptures, livings oracles, and personal revelation) I would hope it is circular, each one reaffirming the other two.You are assuming that Monson is the only one the receive revelation...Before the 1978 revelation was even announced, Gerald Peterson Sr. sent a letter to SLC releasing the LDS leadership of their duties because of their decision (which hadn't yet been announced) to give blacks the Priesthood.He somehow knew that the decision had been made, So you are left to explain the dueling revelations. 2
filovirus Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) You are assuming that Monson is the only one the receive revelation...Before the 1978 revelation was even announced, Gerald Peterson Sr. sent a letter to SLC releasing the LDS leadership of their duties because of their decision (which hadn't yet been announced) to give blacks the Priesthood.He somehow knew that the decision had been made, So you are left to explain the dueling revelations.I don't think you are interpreting what I wrote correctly. I didn't mention President Monson specifically. Edited October 24, 2015 by filovirus
theplains Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses, is a prime example. God wanted him to believe the Doctrine and Covenants is the word of God revealed to Joseph Smith. Satan told him it was not the word of God. He apostatized, thinking the Holy Ghost revealed to him that the Doctrine and Covenants is not the word of God. He apostatized, thinking he was following Jesus Christ and thinking he had no need to give heed to Jesus Christ's prophet on the earth. His Address to all believers in Christ is pretty insightful and sincere. As for the Doctrine and Covenants,parts of it have had sections removed too. See decanonizing ... Regards,Jim
sunstoned Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 the thing about humans is we're pretty complex. None of us can possible agree on every particular. We're too varied. If a prophet tells me it's doctrine that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existent, or that inter-racial marriage is wrong, and I reject it, am I rejecting the prophet? Or rejecting one, or two of his teachings? What if a prophet teaches that polygamy is required for exaltation and I reject it? Is rejecting such an idea rejecting the prophet or that particular teaching?No one "follows" a prophet. Each should listen and decide and learn whether what is said by prophets is good and useful to him/her. There are exceptions to nearly every rule, it seems.I agree. But the problem is that with the church this is not acceptable unless you keep all of this to yourself. You are either in lock step with the brethren or you are in danger of being an outcast. Regardless of any talks on inclusion you might of heard, the reality is that the brethren will tolerate little deviance from what they preach. There is no third way. You are either with them, our you are outcast.
sunstoned Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Nope. It is best to follow truth.If a living prophet contradicts a dead prophet and the living prophet claims no further light revelation to allow the contradiction where the dead prophet recorded revelation it becomes an easy choice for me. ie.Joseph Smith had a recorded revelation stating XYZ.Ezra Taft Benson claimed XYZ was wrong but provided no revelation. It is NOT correct principle to follow Pres. Benson (in this example). Even if a new revelation was claimed any revelation that contradicts a previous revelation may be presumed false according to Joseph Smith. God doesn't change his eternal truths.^ agreed ^
sunstoned Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 As long as President Monson didn't contradict a revelation given through President Benson.How about the current essays contradicting what was preached by Brigham Young.
JLHPROF Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 How about the current essays contradicting what was preached by Brigham Young. Good question...But to be specific some things are revelations and some things are opinions.If something was given through the prophet as a revelation, no future revelation should be contradictory and be believed to come from God.If a prophet expresses an opinion a future prophet has every right to a different one.
MiserereNobis Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Good question...But to be specific some things are revelations and some things are opinions.If something was given through the prophet as a revelation, no future revelation should be contradictory and be believed to come from God.If a prophet expresses an opinion a future prophet has every right to a different one. That certainly doesn't help anyone in the present moment. If someone is Brigham Young's time was disagreeing with Brigham Young and saying that he was teaching racist opinions that were false, I'm sure they would have been told to follow the prophet... How does one know if a current prophet is giving revelation or just opinion? The LDS claim that they have a modern-day prophet who receives revelation from God sounds really great, but the practicalities don't make it seem all the unique and different from practicalities of the Catholic Pope, Joseph Smith excepted. What the Pope does and what the LDS prophet does are, practically speaking, almost the same. This rather deflates the claim that the LDS prophet is something unique and special. Again, Joseph Smith is an exception to this.
JLHPROF Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 How does one know if a current prophet is giving revelation or just opinion? Well they used to actually have real revelations that we can read and study (and not just Joseph Smith). Not for many years though.In my opinion if God didn't care enough to provide an actual contradiction of a previous revelation I am under no obligation to take someone's word. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Satan deceives people into believing his lies while convincing them that they are listening to the Holy Ghost. People are deceived because they do not know they are listening to Satan. Scriptures show us that Satan can even deceive people into believing someone is Christ. In Matthew 24:5, Christ said, “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.” Paul told the Corinthians that there are “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” – 2 Corinthians 11:13-14 He told the Romans that there are those who “by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple,” and they “cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine.” – Romans 16:17-18 Paul thought it necessary to warn the Hebrews about Satan’s ability to convince people that false doctrines are true, telling them to “be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.” – Hebrews 13:9 He warned the Colossian saints: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” – Colossians 2:8 Latter-day Saints who go against God’s prophet on the earth have been deceived by Satan. If they claim that the Holy Ghost told them to go against the prophet, then it is quite obvious that Satan has convinced them to follow after “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” Follow God's prophet and partake of the only true gospel of Jesus Christ. Or Satan has led them to be spoiled “through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Or they gave heed to Satan and were “carried about with divers and strange doctrines.” David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses, is a prime example. God wanted him to believe the Doctrine and Covenants is the word of God revealed to Joseph Smith. Satan told him it was not the word of God. He apostatized, thinking the Holy Ghost revealed to him that the Doctrine and Covenants is not the word of God. He apostatized, thinking he was following Jesus Christ and thinking he had no need to give heed to Jesus Christ's prophet on the earth.How do you know prophets are true? Why follow them?
mfbukowski Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Yay, we finally have one I can agree with. But what to do when two prophets teach opposing doctrines? Just go with the one that's alive because he's alive?Nah, just follow everyone who says he's a prophet. Good idea, huh!?
mfbukowski Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Unless someone is teaching others to go into apostasy I'm willing to give alot of leeway to anyone in their struggles to follow the Lord and His prophets.Apostasy from what? OK I will shut up now, for a while. Probably this is all settled by now, right?
mfbukowski Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 From the LDS point-of-view, if someone follows a prophet's particular teaching, and that prophet turns out to be wrong (like the examples given already: blacks and the priesthood, interracial marriage, etc), is that person absolved of guilt? Is following the prophet an acceptable excuse for God? Likewise, if someone goes against a prophet's teaching and it turns out the prophet is wrong (examples already given), is that person guilty of not following the prophet in God's eyes? I'm just wondering if the LDS have doctrine or teachings on this matter. (We Catholics, of course, have an intricate system of who you should believe when and how much belief you should have. We like intricate systems! )Nah, you follow the Holy Ghost and learn to live with ambiguity. If God is going to punish us for each of us doing his best we are all in trouble. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 That certainly doesn't help anyone in the present moment. If someone is Brigham Young's time was disagreeing with Brigham Young and saying that he was teaching racist opinions that were false, I'm sure they would have been told to follow the prophet... How does one know if a current prophet is giving revelation or just opinion? The LDS claim that they have a modern-day prophet who receives revelation from God sounds really great, but the practicalities don't make it seem all the unique and different from practicalities of the Catholic Pope, Joseph Smith excepted. What the Pope does and what the LDS prophet does are, practically speaking, almost the same. This rather deflates the claim that the LDS prophet is something unique and special. Again, Joseph Smith is an exception to this.Yep, so you are now becoming LDS now right since we are so close- or do you have a testimony that Catholicism is right? How do you know?
MiserereNobis Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Yep, so you are now becoming LDS now right since we are so close- or do you have a testimony that Catholicism is right?How do you know? Nah, actually all you LDS really want to be Catholics I know because... (dang, where is that post where I get to cut and paste my own comment to you about propositions and truth?) Yes, I have a testimony. Beautifully subjective, totally true. And I'm still looking forward to beating you over the head with my immaterial bat while we play harps and sing on our clouds in heaven. (clarification for the uninitiated: Mark and I banter all the time -- take this post accordingly)
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Nah, actually all you LDS really want to be Catholics I know because... (dang, where is that post where I get to cut and paste my own comment to you about propositions and truth?) Yes, I have a testimony. Beautifully subjective, totally true. And I'm still looking forward to beating you over the head with my immaterial bat while we play harps and sing on our clouds in heaven. (clarification for the uninitiated: Mark and I banter all the time -- take this post accordingly)Oh good You had me scared there for a minute
Tony Frank Posted October 27, 2015 Author Posted October 27, 2015 How do you know prophets are true? Why follow them? As sure as I know there is a God in heaven and as sure as I know Jesus is the Christ, I know that Jesus Christ has restored His true gospel in these latter days and that He leads His only true and living Church through His prophet on the earth.
Tsuzuki Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 As sure as I know there is a God in heaven and as sure as I know Jesus is the Christ, I know that Jesus Christ has restored His true gospel in these latter days and that He leads His only true and living Church through His prophet on the earth.I could say those exact same words without sarcasm and mean the exact opposite of what you mean by them.
Recommended Posts