Discerning true and false prophets - how?

[theplains]

I saw a fairmormon article that talks about the biblical keys but is there some material
which shows the keys in the Book of Mormon for discerning true and false prophets?

Thanks,
Jim

[CV75]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I saw a fairmormon article that talks about the biblical keys but is there some material
which shows the keys in the Book of Mormon for discerning true and false prophets?

Thanks,
Jim

Moroni 10:3-5 and Alma 30.

[bluebell]

Alma 32 is also a good one.

[The Nehor]

Throw them into a pond. If they float they are prophets. If they drown they are not.

Or am I thinking of witches?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Throw them into a pond. If they float they are prophets. If they drown they are not.

Or am I thinking of witches?

Aren't they the same thing anyway?

[Maidservant]

Moroni 5:7, 13 and accompanying verses might be of help too.

[Bobbieaware]

14 hours ago, theplains said:

I saw a fairmormon article that talks about the biblical keys but is there some material
which shows the keys in the Book of Mormon for discerning true and false prophets?

Thanks,
Jim

Much more often than not, the false prophets of the Book of Mormon are, in reality, false teachers who attempt to propogate false philosophical and theological constructs that 1) deny Jesus is the Christ and 2) reject there is an absolute need for divinely-authorized living prophets who receive revelation from God to guide the Lord's people in the here and now. Among the many Book of Mormon verses that could be cited to demonstrate my point, in the following verses the prophet Jacob warns the people that they must believe in Christ and obtain the spirit of revelation from God if they are to have a hope of gaining unshakable faith in God. And then the prophet Moroni who warns the members that the rejection of the principle of divine revelation given to living prophets of God is a sure sign of apostasy (I.e. becoming false teachers).

6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.

7 Nevertheless, the Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things.

8 Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God. (Jacob 4) 

and...

7 And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues;

8 Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them. (Mormon 9)

Edited September 14, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[cdowis]

Matt 16 [15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
[16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Throw them into a pond. If they float they are prophets. If they drown they are not.

Or am I thinking of witches?

Build a bridge out of them

[Kevin Christensen]

I wrote the FAIR essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets.   I have notes for more in the Book of Mormon, and the D&C and there are other things in the Early Christian Fathers, such as the Didache and the like that Nibley surveys in The World and the Prophets.

In the Book of Mormon, we have discussions of Lehi and Nephi and Jacob versus Laman and Lemuel and Sherem, as well as the First Temple versus the Deuteronomists.  Then we get Nehor and Korihor as bad examples versus Alma and Amulek, with Zeezrom as an example of transformation.  The story of the unobserved murder in Helaman 9 involves a test for a true prophet.  And Samuel discusses the kind of flattering prophets that people want, the kind that says all is well, rather than repent. And after Samuel leaves, Helaman 16 discusses again the rationalizations people use to reject the true prophets.   3 Nephi begins with the story of fulfillment of prophesy, and then shows what happens after people forget what they saw, showing the kinds of thinking that supposes we could have steady faith if only we had constantly re-enforced absolute certainty, and therefore knew that what we doing is the right thing even when we have to give up what we want right now.  That sort of thinking misses the point of faith as something necessarily and by definition, something short of absolute certainty, but is built rather on cause to believe and hope for the future.

Alma 32 is a crucial discourse on discernment, including an important contrast between "cause to believe" and absolute certainty, and really blends into the narratives of the Zoramites that show contrasting modes of thinking.

Alma's discourse to Corianton can be seen as addressing differences between true and false teaching. 

And Mormon and Moroni also provide more food for thought.

The point of doing the essay was to provide people with the Biblical Keys, and since one of the Biblical keys involves the recommendation to "examine the works" then, I assume that readers of the Book of Mormon and the D&C will run into the additional material.   And it turns out that using the Biblical Keys quickly narrows the field of candidates to Joseph Smith, which, I think, is why people prefer to roll their own, personally customized and subjective tests (that is, "It's not the way I would do it if I were God,") since that makes it easier to control the answer.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited September 14, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[theplains]

On 14/09/2017 at 10:00 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

I wrote the FAIR essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets.   I have notes for more in the Book of Mormon, and the D&C and there are other things in the Early Christian Fathers, such as the Didache and the like that Nibley surveys in The World and the Prophets.

Thanks Kevin.

Jim

[mfbukowski]

True and false prophets is not the issue as far as I am concerned.  It is a much larger issue.

Why would God want to communicate with humans in the first place, and why trust the bible or even the belief that there ARE prophets in the first place, true OR false??

There is only possible answer to all these questions and that is that you feel it in your heart or it's all over anyway!!

That is the only basis we have for belief in anything anyway from Save the Whales to a 6 day creation, in speaking about religion.   The justification for following your heart is the ultimate question and can be found in writers like William James.

Without that it is an infinite regress.

Why follow a prophet?  Why follow the Bible that alleges prophets exist?  Why believe in a God who would give us the Bible?  Why believe in a God who cares at all?

The truth of prophets is just scratching the surface, but the answers to all of these are the same:   Trust what you feel inside.

Without that it is all moot.

Justify that point and it gives you all the other answers.

And as Kevin implies- it's all in Alma 32 as well.  But just taking it from Alma becomes circular because then you are trusting scripture to be "scripture", which of course it is.  So I take philosophy as the "second witness".

Ironic perhaps but it is perfectly logical to be "illogical" and trust your heart.  We make all our important decisions of our life based on the heart.  That's what humans do.

Edited September 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[PeterPear]

On 9/14/2017 at 7:00 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

I wrote the FAIR essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets.   I have notes for more in the Book of Mormon, and the D&C and there are other things in the Early Christian Fathers, such as the Didache and the like that Nibley surveys in The World and the Prophets.

In the Book of Mormon, we have discussions of Lehi and Nephi and Jacob versus Laman and Lemuel and Sherem, as well as the First Temple versus the Deuteronomists.  Then we get Nehor and Korihor as bad examples versus Alma and Amulek, with Zeezrom as an example of transformation.  The story of the unobserved murder in Helaman 9 involves a test for a true prophet.  And Samuel discusses the kind of flattering prophets that people want, the kind that says all is well, rather than repent. And after Samuel leaves, Helaman 16 discusses again the rationalizations people use to reject the true prophets.   3 Nephi begins with the story of fulfillment of prophesy, and then shows what happens after people forget what they saw, showing the kinds of thinking that supposes we could have steady faith if only we had constantly re-enforced absolute certainty, and therefore knew that what we doing is the right thing even when we have to give up what we want right now.  That sort of thinking misses the point of faith as something necessarily and by definition, something short of absolute certainty, but is built rather on cause to believe and hope for the future.

Alma 32 is a crucial discourse on discernment, including an important contrast between "cause to believe" and absolute certainty, and really blends into the narratives of the Zoramites that show contrasting modes of thinking.

Alma's discourse to Corianton can be seen as addressing differences between true and false teaching. 

And Mormon and Moroni also provide more food for thought.

The point of doing the essay was to provide people with the Biblical Keys, and since one of the Biblical keys involves the recommendation to "examine the works" then, I assume that readers of the Book of Mormon and the D&C will run into the additional material.   And it turns out that using the Biblical Keys quickly narrows the field of candidates to Joseph Smith, which, I think, is why people prefer to roll their own, personally customized and subjective tests (that is, "It's not the way I would do it if I were God,") since that makes it easier to control the answer.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

So you believe this statement from this FAIR essay?

"Statements from Joseph Smith or others on geography are not binding on the Church, despite the claims of various theorists."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Hill_Cumorah

[carbon dioxide]

44 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

So you believe this statement from this FAIR essay?

"Statements from Joseph Smith or others on geography are not binding on the Church, despite the claims of various theorists."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Hill_Cumorah

A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.  Prophets are men like everyone else.  The only difference between a prophet and a person who is not a prophet is that when someone acts as a prophet, they are speaking by the Holy Ghost.  So yes all statements by Joseph Smith and others regarding geography are not binding on the Church unless such statements were made through the Holy Ghost and established as binding on the Church. 

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

So you believe this statement from this FAIR essay?

"Statements from Joseph Smith or others on geography are not binding on the Church, despite the claims of various theorists."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Hill_Cumorah

I believe this statement from LDS.org:

"As you use this diagram, explain that the Church has no official position about Book of Mormon geography except that the events occurred in the Americas."

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2013/mosiah/lesson-56?lang=eng

Also:

"I would like to add my testimony of the divinity of this book. I have read it many times. I have also read much that has been written about it. Some authors have focused upon its stories, its people, or its vignettes of history. Others have been intrigued by its language structure or its records of weapons, geography, animal life, techniques of building, or systems of weights and measures.

Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/10/a-testimony-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

Edited September 18, 2017 by Calm

[Marginal Gains]

Why wouldn't The Church have an official position about Book of Mormon geography?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why wouldn't The Church have an official position about Book of Mormon geography?

Because no matter how interesting it is geography isn't the purpose of the Book of Mormon. Its purpose is as a Second Witness of Christ.

[Marginal Gains]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why wouldn't The Church have an official position about Book of Mormon geography?

 

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Because no matter how interesting it is geography isn't the purpose of the Book of Mormon. Its purpose is as a Second Witness of Christ.

Why then does the Church have an official position about Bible Geography? And Church History Geography?

My view is that, rather than the reasoning you suggest, the Church simply doesn’t know where the Book of Mormon geography is and that leaders know to articulate an opinion would lead to archeology etc showing them to be in error. Expressing an official view on location has never turned out well. If they knew where it happened then the Church would take an official position.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why wouldn't The Church have an official position about Book of Mormon geography?

Because apart from it being set somewhere in the Americas (see JS-H 1:34), we appear to lack revelatory guidance on that subject.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because apart from it being set somewhere in the Americas (see JS-H 1:34), we appear to lack revelatory guidance on that subject.

Thanks,

-Smac

So it could have taken place in the area in which Joseph Smith lived?

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So it could have taken place in the area in which Joseph Smith lived?

Theoretically, yes.  I personally find that theory unavailing, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kevin Christensen]

8 hours ago, PeterPear said:

So you believe this statement from this FAIR essay?

"Statements from Joseph Smith or others on geography are not binding on the Church, despite the claims of various theorists."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Hill_Cumorah

Of course I believe that statement.  It is consistent with direct statements in the Book of Mormon on the limits of what we should label "doctrine" and that extending that label willy nilly to anything else is like building on sand rather than rock, as well as direct statements in D&C 1 that formally define "mine authority and the authority of my servants" that expressly allows for error, weakness, repentance, and points out that the possibility of further revelation has conditions including our asking the right questions.  It is also consistent with Joseph Smith's express statements that explain the problem with creeds as "setting up stakes and bounds to the work of the almighty, saying "hitherto thou shalt come, and no further" rather than always being open to further light and knowledge.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Marginal Gains]

8 hours ago, PeterPear said:

So you believe this statement from this FAIR essay?

"Statements from Joseph Smith or others on geography are not binding on the Church, despite the claims of various theorists."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Hill_Cumorah

 

2 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Of course I believe that statement.  It is consistent with direct statements in the Book of Mormon on the limits of what we should label "doctrine" and that extending that label willy nilly to anything else is like building on sand rather than rock, as well as direct statements in D&C 1 that formally define "mine authority and the authority of my servants" that expressly allows for error, weakness, repentance, and points out that the possibility of further revelation has conditions including our asking the right questions.  It is also consistent with Joseph Smith's express statements that explain the problem with creeds as "setting up stakes and bounds to the work of the almighty, saying "hitherto thou shalt come, and no further" rather than always being open to further light and knowledge.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Statements from FAIR are not binding on the Church, right?

Edited September 18, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why then does the Church have an official position about Bible Geography?

CFR, if you please, the "official position" of the LDS Church about "Bible Geography."

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

And Church History Geography?

Revelatory guidance is not needed to determine the vast majority of locations described in Church history and pertaining to 19th-century events.  So the Church can proceed with "Church History Geography" for the reasons set forth in D&C 58:26.

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

My view is that, rather than the reasoning you suggest, the Church simply doesn’t know where the Book of Mormon geography is

It's not a "rather than."  It's "in addition to."

Joseph Smith-History 1:34 is, I think, the centerpiece of the Church's vague position on the geography of The Book of Mormon (emphasis added):

Quote

29 In consequence of these things, I often felt condemned for my weakness and imperfections; when, on the evening of the above-mentioned twenty-first of September, after I had retired to my bed for the night, I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God for forgiveness of all my sins and follies, and also for a manifestation to me, that I might know of my state and standing before him; for I had full confidence in obtaining a divine manifestation, as I previously had one.

30 While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

...

33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

The position of the LDS Church is that "the Church has no official position about Book of Mormon geography except that the events occurred in the Americas."  That comports with JS-H 1:34, but also acknowledges that we otherwise lack specific revelatory guidance on this subject.  That sounds about right.  More here (emphases added):

Quote

Two issues merit consideration in relation to possible external correlations of Book of Mormon geography. What is the official position of the Church, and what are the pervading opinions of its members?

In early Church history, the most common opinion among members and Church leaders was that Book of Mormon lands encompassed all of North and South America, although at least one more limited alternative view was also held for a time by some. The official position of the Church is that the events narrated in the Book of Mormon occurred somewhere in the Americas, but that the specific location has not been revealed. This position applies both to internal geographies and to external correlations. No internal geography has yet been proposed or approved by the Church, and none of the internal or external geographies proposed by individual members (including that proposed above) has received approval. Efforts in that direction by members are neither encouraged nor discouraged. In the words of John A. Widtsoe, an apostle, "All such studies are legitimate, but the conclusions drawn from them, though they may be correct, must at the best be held as intelligent conjectures" (Vol. 3, p. 93).

...

In 1842 an editorial in the Church newspaper claimed that "Lehi…landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama]" (T&S 3 [Sept. 15, 1842]:921-22). This would move the location of Lehi's landing some 3,000 miles north of the proposed site in Chile. Although Joseph Smith had assumed editorial responsibility for the paper by this time, it is not known whether this statement originated with him or even represented his views. Two weeks later, another editorial appeared in the Times and Seasons that, in effect, constituted a book review of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, by John Lloyd Stephens. This was the first accessible book in English containing detailed descriptions and drawings of ancient Mayan ruins. Excerpts from it were included in the Times and Seasons, along with the comment that "it will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens' ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts. The truth injures no one" (T&S 3 [Oct. 1, 1842]:927).

In statements since then, Church leaders have generally declined to give any opinion on issues of Book of Mormon geography. When asked to review a map showing the supposed landing place of Lehi's company, President Joseph F. Smith declared that the "Lord had not yet revealed it" (Cannon, p. 160 n.). In 1929, Anthony W. Ivins, counselor in the First Presidency, added, "There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question [of Book of Mormon geography]…. We are just waiting until we discover the truth" (CR, Apr. 1929, p. 16). While the Church has not taken an official position with regard to location of geographical places, the authorities do not discourage private efforts to deal with the subject (Cannon).

So I am fine with the Church limiting itself to matters on which there is revelatory guidance.  That appears to be what has happened here.

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

and that leaders know to articulate an opinion would lead to archeology etc showing them to be in error.

That could be part of the calculus, yes.  The General Authorities are wise not to conflate speculation and personal opinion with revealed matters.  The early leaders of the Church were, I think, less experienced at this practice.  I cut them a lot of slack, though, as the early generations of the Church had no precedent on which to build, no mentors or institutional knowledge and experience to rely on, and so on.

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Expressing an official view on location has never turned out well.

Yep.  From the EOM article above:

Quote

Three statements sometimes attributed to the Prophet Joseph Smith are often cited as evidence of an official Church position. An 1836 statement asserts that "Lehi and his company…landed on the continent of South America, in Chili [sic ], thirty degrees, south latitude" (Richards, Little, p. 272). This view was accepted by Orson Pratt and printed in the footnotes to the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, but insufficient evidence exists to clearly attribute it to Joseph Smith ("Did Lehi Land in Chili [sic]?"; cf. Roberts, Vol. 3, pp. 501-503, and Widtsoe, Vol. 3, pp. 93-98).

In 1842 an editorial in the Church newspaper claimed that "Lehi…landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama]" (T&S 3 [Sept. 15, 1842]:921-22). This would move the location of Lehi's landing some 3,000 miles north of the proposed site in Chile. Although Joseph Smith had assumed editorial responsibility for the paper by this time, it is not known whether this statement originated with him or even represented his views. Two weeks later, another editorial appeared in the Times and Seasons that, in effect, constituted a book review of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, by John Lloyd Stephens. This was the first accessible book in English containing detailed descriptions and drawings of ancient Mayan ruins. Excerpts from it were included in the Times and Seasons, along with the comment that "it will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens' ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts. The truth injures no one" (T&S 3 [Oct. 1, 1842]:927).

In statements since then, Church leaders have generally declined to give any opinion on issues of Book of Mormon geography. . .

This sort of thing makes me grateful for continuing revelation and prophetic guidance, even when that guidance amounts to something like "We do not now precisely where the events described in The Book of Mormon took place, only that they occurred somewhere in the Americas, so members of the Church are free to research and study this issue pending further light and knowledge."

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

If they knew where it happened then the Church would take an official position.

Yep.  Hence my acceptance of the November 2015 policy change as revelatory.  I think the Brethren "know" it to be such.  They have presented it as such.

There are many matters of church governance, guidance and administration which are, I think, left to the discretion and cumulative experience and wisdom and good faith efforts of the Brethren.  On other matters, such as the current topic of BOM geography, the Brethren abstain from staking out "an official position" absent revelation on the subject.  I am glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Statements from FAIR are not binding on the Church, right?

Correct.

In the legal world, attorneys rely on various types of "authorities" to establish or defend their clients' legal rights.  There is a hierarchy to such authorities, such that lawyers and judges are "bound" to some, but not as much to others.  Examples of such "binding" authorities include:

• The U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land."  Any inferior statute (or state constitution) or administrative rule or legal decision that conflicts with the Constitution loses.
• The state constitution will, in that state, supersede any statute or administrative rule or legal decision.
• State statutes enacted by the state legislature supersede countervailing legal decisions made by a trial court judge.
• A legal decision from a higher state court (such as the Utah Supreme Court) supersedes any countervailing legal decision made by an inferior court (such as the Utah Court of Appeals).

And so on.  For me as an attorney in Utah, the U.S. Constitution, the Utah State Constitution, state statutes, state appellate court decisions, and so on are "mandatory" authorities as to legal issues arising out of state law.  In a federal law context, there are many more "mandatory" authorities (federal statutes, for example).

As a separate category, attorneys also rely - to a lesser extent - on "persuasive" authorities.  These are sources of information about the law, but are not "the law" per se.  For example, an attorney in Utah may encounter an obscure point of law that has not been addressed by the courts in Utah.  The attorney can then turn to decisions from appellate courts in the federal system, or in other states, which have addressed that point of law, and then use those citations as "persuasive" authorities (meaning the court can consider them, but is not bound to follow them).  Other forms of "persuasive" authorities include obiter dicta (a remark in a legal decision that is said in passing, but is not necessarily intended to be binding), and also "learned treatises" and "restatements" ("Courts may consider the writings of eminent legal scholars in treatises, restatements of the law, and law reviews. The extent to which judges find these types of writings persuasive will vary widely with elements such as the reputation of the author and the relevance of the argument.").

In an LDS context, there are some corollaries to obiter dicta and "learned treatises."  The writings and publications of prophets and apostles would be good examples.  These can be read and applied as "persuasive," but not necessarily "mandatory," authorities. 

Similarly, there are "learned treatises" that the Saints can look to as "persuasive" but not "mandatory" authorities about the Restored Gospel.  I think much of what FAIR has published falls into this category.

Thanks,

-Smac