What does a prophet look/act like?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

I agree that the general sentiment of the conversation is accurate given LDS theological positions.  But I still remain skeptical that the conversation is being conveyed exactly as spoken.  

Last week I was working on a complaint I will be filing for my client.  I called her and we spoke at length about a set of telephone communications she had had with a foreclosure trustee in November 2020.  I asked her in several different ways to repeat what was said.  Eventually we got to a recitation that, though likely was not a verbatim and 100% accurate transcript of the calls, nevertheless accurately captured my client's recollection of what was said.  When I put these quotations into the complaint, I put the wording in as recollected from my client, but then qualified these quotes with "or words substantially to that effect."

So it could be with Elder Whitney's recollection.  Not a 100% verbatim and pristinely accurate "exactly as spoken" recitation of the statement from the Catholic theologian, but a restatement comprised of recollected "words substantially to that effect."

4 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

It's just too good to be completely accurate, IMO.

I don't know about that.  This critic seems to think it's not very good at all:

Quote

Now some further issues with the statement:

Orson F. doesn’t cite a source.  In fact, we have no idea if he really had the conversation at all.  This is the same as someone else saying “Hey a pastafarian said it was either Atheism, or them that have it right, so I totally believe in wearing pirate clothing now, and so should you”.  No credibility to the source or the story.

It ignores the other Restoration faiths that came out of the burned over district.  It is carefully crafted to make the audience “mormons” feel special while giving no specifics beyong the shocking term “ignoramuses”, which is clearly dropped for effect to make the listener sit up and listen, start to get upset, and then… oh right, I’m special.

This is a sort of bullying tactic, where the LDS are making themselves feel better by “putting down” other faiths.  And even though it paints catholics as the “other possibility” even catholics are not flattered by the story.

But even worse, the arguement is a poor one

Let alone the offshoots of mormonism, from the FLDS, to the Bickertonites, to the Strangites.  Comparing mormonism to catholicism for “unbroken lines of succession” seems pretty weak. At best Orson’s friend was unfamiliar of how poor Brigham’s claim to succession really was as well as that his own church doesn’t claim apostolic succession (A pope need not be an apostle).

No catholic learned man ever backed up the story

In all the years this story has been told and retold (I heard it in seminary) not a single catholic has stood up to state “I knew Orson F. I said that statement, let me clarify a few things…”.   Which puts this story pretty much in the Paul H. Dunn category of credibility.

Here he invokes Paul H. Dunn.  Must be nice to have that particular ace in the sleeve for any given disagreement with the Church.  No need to examine evidence or weigh credibility.  Paul H. Dunn lied and/or embellished when he recounted some of his life experiences, ergo anything ever said or quoted by any other General Authority is per se tainted and untrustworthy.

I can't get on board with that level of cynicism and misanthropy, particularly as deployed against an unpopular religious/ethnic group. 

"Bernie Madoff stole billions, therefore all Jewish businessmen are untrustworthy." 

"Tom Kimball sexually abused many people, therefore all ex-mormons are presumptive perverts."  

Yeesh.

4 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Having said that, I think there are lots of other religionists that have "Holy Envy" when it comes to the Latter-day Saints. 

I agree.  See, e.g. this:

I can't help but think about Europe, which has gone through a tremendous and swift secularization process.  I think some in the dwindling numbers of devout Christians in Europe may feel this, particularly given that so much of their history and culture are intertwined with Christianity, which is now on the wane.

4 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

With temples, wonderful communities, success in education etc...  there is much to be admired by other believers.

Yes, the sense of community is wonderful.  I have an acquaintance who left the Church a while back.  She has since said that one of the most difficult adjustments she has faced is the loss of the community.  Strangely, this seems to have become a cause for her to further resent and distance herself from the Church and its members (including some of her family members).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And what does she say about the prophet?

Which prophet? They believe in the Bible prophets and their own revelation, and are essentially declaring themselves as a prophet at least in this matter.

[Meadowchik]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Stuff like this is why we have multiple means of evaluating such things.  Consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Your friend seems to be relying solely on one leg of the stool (personal revelation) and mostly or entirely disregarding the other three: reason, prophets and scripture.

• Reason: The vaccines have been created by experts working very hard for many months.  The intent of the vaccines is to help the world overcome a pandemic.  There is no evidence of any artifice or ulterior motive in play.
• Prophets: Pres. Nelson and the other leaders of the Church have been vaccinated and are encouraging us to get the vaccine.
• Scripture: The Lord's house is "a house of order."  (D&C 109:8.)  The scriptures are replete with exhortations to listen to and follow prophetic guidance, which in this case is to get vaccinated.

If your friend were to use "the methodologies for all four of these tools," he/she would "have a better chance of accurately determining what is true."

Thanks,

-Smac

But all you have provided are opinions about what constitutes revelation, like the three-stool method. Aside from the reasoning leg, the other two rules rely on the premise that one has already accepted prophets.

Personally, I can reject my friend's claims based on reason and science alone, without even entering into a consideration of prophets.

However, their claims demonstrated the shakiness of the prophet claim. 

[Ipod Touch]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That said, I don’t accept your insinuation that Elder Richards is guilty of such a thing in this instance. Nor do I accept on the strength of your unsupported assertion that Elder Richards is a less-than-reliable source. 

Ok.  I hope you feel comfortable with that decision.  I'm cool with it.

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I still say your comparison of this to Paul Dunn’s spurious tales is inappropriate. 

Meh.  Stop board nannying.

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeesh.

I agree.  See, e.g. this:

 

I love his Holy Envy quote from that documentary.  I can appreciate it.  There are rites and rituals in other religions I find beautiful.

[Ipod Touch]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So it could be with Elder Whitney's recollection.  Not a 100% verbatim and pristinely accurate "exactly as spoken" recitation of the statement from the Catholic theologian, but a restatement comprised of recollected "words substantially to that effect."

I think this is perfectly reasonable.  I remember having discussions about papal authority and tracing it back to Jesus.

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, the sense of community is wonderful.  I have an acquaintance who left the Church a while back.  She has since said that one of the most difficult adjustments she has faced is the loss of the community.  Strangely, this seems to have become a cause for her to further resent and distance herself from the Church and its members (including some of her family members).

I left the Church some time ago. And I can certainly relate to the experience of your acquaintance about the loss of community.  Although I do not understand this leading to antipathy. Fortunately, our family has joined another religious community that is wonderful.  But there is nothing quite LDS communities in my view.

[teddyaware]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

In a now-locked thread, @MiserereNobis  made the following remarks, which I would like to open for discussion (the thread was locked for other reasons, so I don't think I'm circumventing the mods).

Quite true.  But then, the claims from our Catholic brothers and sisters regarding the papacy are, in many ways, also "grandiose."

I think there are some significant differences.  Two categories come to mind:

1. Difference in Titles and Apostleship

The leader of the Catholic Church (colloquially the "Pope") has a number of titles: "Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God."  See also here:

Is this correct?

Latter-day Saints believe Pres. Nelson (colloquially the "Prophet") is called "an apostle of Jesus Christ" (D&C 20:2), "prophet, seer and revelator" (cf. Mosiah 8:12-18, D&C 107:91-92, ), "presiding high priest" (D&C 106:1), "President of the High Priesthood of the Church; or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church" (D&C 107:65-66), "President of the Church" (D&C 102:9), and possibly "First Elder of the Church" (D&C 20:2) (I'm not sure if this title was unique to Joseph Smith).

The claim of apostolic status (Pope Francis does not claim it, but Pres. Nelson does) seems like a pretty significant difference.

2. Continuing Revelation and Open Canon

For Catholics, "Vatican II states 'no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ.' The notion of progressive or continuing revelation is not held by the Roman Catholic Church or by Eastern Orthodoxy, who instead favor the idea of tradition and development of doctrine, while progressivist and continuationist approaches are specifically condemned in the declaration Dominus Iesus."

For Latter-day Saints, "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."  (AoF 1:5.)  Also: "We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth."  (AoF 1:6.)  Also: "We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth."  (AoF 1:7.)  Also: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)

Are you under the impression that we believe God has not spoken to any of Joseph's successors?

D&C 68:4 comes to mind: "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

Every six months we receive updated prophetic counsel during General Conference.  And plenty more such guidance in between.  I am very grateful for this.

I agree.  But "looks like" seems to be a key element of that sentence.  Is that the only way "continuing revelation" can manifest?  Is revelation restricted to canonized words?  For the Latter-day Saints, the answer is "no."

A review of the Doctrine & Covenants shows that there were plenty of "policy changes" and "administrative" matters in there.  Consider, for example, D&C 80:

Is this passage quantitatively different from, say, the mission call I received in 1992?  Not really.  It's canonized, which is a difference.  But my mission call was, in my view, as "revelatory" as the one given to Stephen Burnett.

You're getting to know us well!

Again: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)

Our canon has been added to in my lifetime (Official Declaration 2 in 1978).  I hope to see more additions before I close my eyes for good.  Meanwhile, however, I believe that revelation continues in the Church.  I gave some examples here:

I would like to see published and canonized revelations about things that seem significant to us in the here and now, such as ordination to the priesthood (whether it is the will of God to restrict it to males, and if so why), same-sex marriage and same-sex behavior (for obvious reasons), and a few others.

I think the "stuff" is not the "exact same."  And the disclaimer of revelation seems fairly significant.

How so?  One disclaims apostolic/prophetic authority, while the other makes emphatic claims to such authority.

By way of illustration: I am a lawyer, and for the last many years have been involved in representing banks and lenders in residential foreclosures.  Not the best job in the world, but it pays the bills.  Anyway, one day some years ago I received in the mail a documents styled as a "judgment" against me from the "Washington County Judicial Assembly" ("Washington County" is located in southern Utah).  As I recall, the judgment directed me to pay $16 million dollars in gold bullion to James ____________, the "judgment creditor" (a bank I represented had foreclosed on him a few months prior).  A few days later I got a frantic telephone call from a realtor in Washington County.  She told me that she had been hired by the bank to market James ____________'s foreclosed property, and that earlier that day James ____________ had approached her in the Wal-Mart parking lot in St. George (which is in Washingtin County), handed her the above-referenced "judgment" (she was named in it along with me and others a "judgment debtors"), and had tried to "escort" her (essentially kidnap her) by directing her into his vehicle so he could drive her to the "Washington County Judicial Assembly" and explain how she was going to pay the $16 million dollar judgment. 

I contacted the bank and notified them what had happened, and the bank hired a security detail for her until the property was sold.  As for me, however, I wasn't really worried.  The "judgment" looked official.  It had all the trappings of a judgment: a caption naming the parties and the "Judicial Assembly," the location, the entry of judgment, the dollar amount, the signature of the "judge," even an embossed stamp.  But the "Washington County Judicial Assembly" isn't an authorized court of law in Washington County (or anywhere else).  Apparently James ____________ and some friends made it up.  The judgment document they created appeared to be "much the same" as a judgment from an actual court, such as the "Fifth Judicial District Court" created and recognized under the Utah Constitution, or an Article III federal court created and recognized under the U.S. Constitution.  And yet the similarities in form and function were ultimately superficial and meaningless because the "Washington County Judicial Assembly" lacked any actual authority to render a judgment against me.

Claims of authority, revelation, open canon, etc. are pretty important, as is actually having them.

I can appreciate that perspective.  I respectfully disagree with it.  I think it's based more on subjective expectations about and prophets and revelations and authority and such work, and less on how they actually work.

That's not quite correct.  It was added to in 1918, and again in 1978.

Again, this sounds to be more about subjective expectations than anything else.  What do you think an "open canon" would look like?  Are regularly-scheduled canonizations necessary?

I'm okay with that (broadly speaking - I think we can and ought to do more, collectively and individually, to obtain further revelation from God).  I think canonized revelation comes in fits and spurts.  Take a look at the chronology of the Doctrine & Covenants:

It looks like 1829-1833 and 1838 were pretty intense in terms of canonized revelations.  I believe more will come.

Meanwhile, however, I'm curious as to what sort of canonized revelations are "missing."  For folks who feel that we don't have enough, what sorts of revelations would you hope to see received and canonized?  What topics would you like addressed?

By way of comparison, let's take a look at the U.S. Constitution.  More specifically, the chronology of the 27 amendments that have been added to it since the Constitution became law in 1789:

This looks like some pretty lean years for the Constitution. 

60 years between the 12th and 13th amendments. 

44 years between the 15th and the 16th. 

18 years between the 21st and 22nd. 

21 years between the 26th and 27th. 

And we are presently at 29 years and counting since the 27th amendment.

These gaps add up the 172 years of pretty long dry spells during the 232-year history of the Constitution.

Is this a bad sign for the Republic?  I don't think so.  It's not like there is a specified timeframe for amending the Constitution.  They come up on an as-needed basis, which may result in clusters of amendments, and otherwise we experience long interim gaps in which the Constitution is functioning and being applied in its intended ways until such time as further amendments are necessary.

Could we perhaps say something similar about canonized revelations for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

What does a prophet look like?

What does a prophet act like?

How do we know?

Thanks,

-Smac

As I’ve said many times before, for any faithful member of the Church who possesses the Spirit of revelation it is clear as bright noon-day, in brightest, vibrant technicolor, that the Church is awash in revelation, with every General Conference of the Church being veritable “revelationfests.’ Like those clever hidden subject 3D paintings that were popular in the 80s, once you see the powerful presence of revelation in today’s Church it’s impossible to unsee it. There are so many General Conference addresses that could easily be added to our canon of scripture that the printed standard works would require so many volumes that one man couldn’t possibly carry them all.

The Lord is allowing his revelations to be disseminated to the modern Church in this way to test the faith of the members to see if they need to be hit over the head with the proverbial mallet before they can realize and acknowledge they’re hearing the voice of the Spirit in abundance. Yes, many members of the Church are going to be shocked and embarrassed when they realize the Church is being flooded with modern scripture, but scripture that has not yet been canonized.

And what does it matter if a nonmember can’t see what can only be discerned by the enlightening power of the Holy Ghost? No amount of clever persuasion will ever convince such a man, for the presence of revelation from God, and its meaning and import, can only be discerned by the gift of the Holy Ghost, as bestowed upon baptized members by the authorized Melchizedek Priesthood holders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If the majority of the members possessed the Spirit of revelation themselves, none of this would be an issue.

Edited February 4, 2021 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

As I’ve said many times before, for any faithful member of the Church who possesses the Spirit of revelation it is clear as bright noon-day, in brightest, vibrant technicolor, that the Church is awash in revelation, with every General Conference of the Church being veritable “revelationfests.’ Like those clever hidden subject 3D paintings that were popular in the 80s, once you see the powerful presence of revelation in today’s Church it’s impossible to unsee it. There are so many General Conference addresses that could easily be added to our canon of scripture that the printed standard works would require so many volumes that one man couldn’t possibly carry them all.

The Lord is allowing his revelations to be disseminated to the modern Church in this way to test the faith of the members to see if they need to be hit over the head with the proverbial mallet before they can realize and acknowledge they’re hearing the voice of the Spirit in abundance. Yes, many members of the Church are going to be shocked and embarrassed when they realize the Church is being flooded with modern scripture, but scripture that has not yet been canonized.

And what does it matter if a nonmember can’t see what can only be discerned by the enlightening power of the Holy Ghost? No amount of clever persuasion will ever convince such a man, for the presence of revelation from God, and its meaning and import, can only be discerned by the gift of the Holy Ghost, as bestowed upon baptized members by the authorized Melchizedek Priesthood holders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If the majority of the members possessed the Spirit of revelation themselves, none of this would be an issue.

I am curious how you define revelation, not just in terms of the delivery method discussion, but in terms of content and purpose.  It seems very broad a stroke based on this.  What constitutes revelation to you?

[Ahab]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

We do not believe in further revelation, but our definition of the word is not really the same as your definition of the word, especially as it appears today. What the LDS church appears to claim as revelation today seems very similar to what the Catholic Church does. We just don't call it revelation, because we use revelation to mean something else. But we do believe that it comes from God, through the Holy Spirit.

I think it would help a lot if we could agree on what revelation actually is, that way we won't be confused about what we are talking about.  I could find some quotes from others if that would help you but to start I will say revelation is a big catch word that includes every way (someone) reveals something to someone else.  Revelation from God, for example, includes any and all of the various ways God reveals something to whoever he reveals that thing to, whether it is an image in a dream or a thought in HIS mind or someone else's mind or an event God knows will happen in the future or some truth that God knows about something.  In other words, revelation can come to us from God in different forms such as through dreams or visions or inspiration/inspiring us to think or see something God wants to reveal to us.

So now please tell me what you think revelation is.  You say you and other members of the Catholic church mean something different than what we mean by the word revelation so please reveal to us what you mean by the word revelation.

Quote

The revelation of Christ will never pass away, so no new (in other words different) revelation is needed.

Says you, I think you mean.  I think you mean you don't need any more revelation from God because you have your Bible and some people to listen to who will tell you what they think the Bible says, and your traditions or your ways of doing things,  But what if God wanted to reveal something else to you which you don't think you need?  Like the Book of Mormon, another testimony (or collection of testimonies) of Jesus Christ which he revealed to ancient inhabitants of America?  What if God wanted to reeal that to you even though you think you don't need it?

Quote

I included the last sentence in the quote because I hadn't really thought of it as possibly referring to the restorationist churches before. Now I think it does. Because of your belief in the apostasy, new revelation was needed. Because we believe there was no apostasy, no new revelation was needed (using the Catholic definition of revelation).

Needed or not, we just want everything God is willing to reveal to us.  We want to live by every word of God whether we need it or not.  Or at least some of us do.  So, needed or not, would you accept more revelation from God if God wanted to reveal more to you?  I can tell you where some more is.  We have a lot more for anyone who is willing to accept more.

Quote

Now remember, no new revelation does NOT mean no inspiration, no guidance from God, no learning what God's will is, no clarification from God on what is true, etc. Catholicism very much believes in these things.

To us it does though because to us revelation includes all of those things.  Inspiration from God is a form of revelation from God.  Clarification from God (some thought from God to clarify truth) is a form of revelation from God.

 

That's it for me for now.  You and smac write some very long posts and I prefer just a little bit here and a little more there, not too much at any one time.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Ahab

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

This is debatable.  I have met some who feel it is an offense to God to expect a confirmation, others that see that as an ineffective way to determine truth and they depend on other things to support their beliefs.  Have no clue how common an attitude these are. 

Yes, I've had the experience of being told that the heart is untrustworthy and that it's a sin to ask God to confirm truth to us.  We must use the bible to know truth and nothing else.

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Ok.  I hope you feel comfortable with that decision.  I'm cool with it.

Meh.  Stop board nannying.

Not accepting an unsupported and unverified accusation that a person (in this case a now-deceased apostle) is less than reliable? Yes, I’m very comfortable with my position. Thank you for your concern. 
 

And scrutinizing ill-considered cynicism and misapplied comparison does not meet my definition of “board nannying.” 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I've had the experience of being told that the heart is untrustworthy and that it's a sin to ask God to confirm truth to us.  We must use the bible to know truth and nothing else.

Yes, I’ve encountered that attitude as well, specifically from certain conservative Protestants. 

[Scott Lloyd]

removed

Edited February 4, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Stuff like this is why we have multiple means of evaluating such things.  Consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Your friend seems to be relying solely on one leg of the stool (personal revelation) and mostly or entirely disregarding the other three: reason, prophets and scripture.

• Reason: The vaccines have been created by experts working very hard for many months.  The intent of the vaccines is to help the world overcome a pandemic.  There is no evidence of any artifice or ulterior motive in play.
• Prophets: Pres. Nelson and the other leaders of the Church have been vaccinated and are encouraging us to get the vaccine.
• Scripture: The Lord's house is "a house of order."  (D&C 109:8.)  The scriptures are replete with exhortations to listen to and follow prophetic guidance, which in this case is to get vaccinated.

But all you have provided are opinions about what constitutes revelation, like the three-stool method.

Well, not really.  I'm not espousing my opinion.  I'm presenting the doctrines of the Church.  You are, of course, at liberty to disregard the doctrines as mere "opinions," but faithful Latter-day Saints do not.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Aside from the reasoning leg, the other two rules rely on the premise that one has already accepted prophets.

Well, yes.  Isn't that a safe premise when the person under discussion purports to be a member of the Church and accept its doctrines?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Personally, I can reject my friend's claims based on reason and science alone, without even entering into a consideration of prophets.

So can I.  But the others are also nice.

There are all sorts of moral and ethical questions that can be substantially informed by "reason and science," but ultimately cannot be based on them "alone."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ipod Touch]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not accepting an unsupported and unverified accusation that a person (in this case a now-deceased apostle) is less than reliable? Yes, I’m very comfortable with my position. Thank you for your concern. 
 

And scrutinizing ill-considered and misapplied cynicism does not meet my definition of “board nannying.” 

Ugh.  Such a bore, I'm putting on ignore.

You remind me of several Utahan members I've encountered in my time.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Ugh.  Such a bore, I'm putting on ignore.

You remind me of several Utahan members I've encountered in my time.

Before you put me on ignore, let me point out that Utahn does not have an a after the h. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well, not really.  I'm not espousing my opinion.  I'm presenting the doctrines of the Church.  You are, of course, at liberty to disregard the doctrines as mere "opinions," but faithful Latter-day Saints do not.

Well, yes.  Isn't that a safe premise when the person under discussion purports to be a member of the Church and accept its doctrines?

So can I.  But the others are also nice.

There are all sorts of moral and ethical questions that can be substantially informed by "reason and science," but ultimately cannot be based on them "alone."

Thanks,

-Smac

To be fair, it's not uncommon to generalise about exclusively religious beliefs as opinion, for example the LDS, Catholics, Muslims, etc... Having their respective opinions. 

Writings as scripture are essentially formalised opinions. Doctrines are essentially formalised opinions.

The three stool method only works for those who want to know what might be acceptable prophecy according to the LDS church. It doesn't inform any other perspective. It doesn't identify prophets for other faiths or potential faithful.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Before you put me in ignore, let me point out that Utahn does not have an a after the h. 

Oh yes, most certainly, before Ipod Touch puts you on ignore he should at least be aware of any spelling errors he made.  Correct spelling is super important.  Probably at least as important as any other truth about anything else!

[Meadowchik]

There's no reliable way to identify a prophet.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Ipod Touch said:

Meh.  Stop board nannying.

Perhaps you are not aware that board nannying is one of the many ways to have some fun on this board.  Not that I am encouraging that kind of thing.  The board Moderators have a rule against it and may discipline you if you do it.

Far be it from me to ever try board nannying on this board!  At any time!  Ever!

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There's no reliable way to identify a prophet.

The best way to tell is when God tells you, personally.  But even then you should say you know only because God told you someone is one.  And, actually, that may be the only way to really know when someone is. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Oh yes, most certainly, before Ipod Touch puts you on ignore he should at least be aware of any spelling errors he made.  Correct spelling is super important.  Probably at least as important as any other truth about anything else!

If you do sarcasm, it should at least be clever. Otherwise it comes across as babbling. 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you do sarcasm, it should at least be clever. Otherwise it comes across as babbling. 

Ouch!  Sting!  Sizzle!  Hit me with some more of that, please.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There's no reliable way to identify a prophet.

Here's a great article about two reliable ways (faith and science) that can work symbiotically to recognize evidence and discover truth: https://magazine.byu.edu/article/faith-science/

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I've had the experience of being told that the heart is untrustworthy and that it's a sin to ask God to confirm truth to us.  We must use the bible to know truth and nothing else.

That sounds like idol worship to me.