What does a prophet look/act like?

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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. 

Actually tells you or gives you a warm fuzzy feeling about it?   Because I'm pretty sure that giving warm fuzzies is a general authority requirement. 
 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rchorse said:

One of the big criticisms of both Joseph Smith and Jesus was that they didn't act like prophets or holy men should act. Both were criticized for what others thought was undignified behavior. When I was a bishop, I heard from several people that I didn't act the way a bishop should act. My favorite was the one man who told me that I was "the meanest man of God [he had] ever met." I do have a blunt personality and don't talk with a typical "church" voice or demeanor, so it didn't surprise me too much.

I got a good laugh from this.  I can imagine the consternation in those who have been lulled into a false sense of traditional LDS expectations of warmth in every situation.

2 hours ago, rchorse said:

My point is that a prophet will act like whoever God calls as a prophet. Just because they get a calling doesn't mean that their personality and individual strengths and weaknesses go out the window. There is definitely increased capacity, strength, and love as a result of the calling, but that is all added on to an individual personality and attributes. I don't think it's possible to define how a prophet should look or act. The best way to discern a prophet is to pray and ask God and see what the Holy Ghost says.

When Brother Brigham first met Joseph Smith Jr, he found him chopping wood.  Brigham later commented that he loved a prophet who chopped wood.  Very different personalities, yet both powerful prophets of the Restoration.

However, while we should not be prescriptive about what a prophet should be, we can be inductively descriptive.  We should take a look at ancient prophets well before we start making demands.  We need to be aware that biblical prophets carried out executions on orders of God (I'm not speaking of Nephi here), they often practiced divination techniques, spoke in poetic lays, had other men act as their scribes, some were simple shepherds, others were high officials in the royal court, they could be both High Priest (non-Levite), Judge, and king-maker simultaneously.  The prophet might also be king.  Those who can't think of exemplars in each case haven't been reading their Bible.

The Jew Claude G. Montefiore saw Jesus as "a sort of eighth-century prophet born out of season," and as a man who "occupies the remarkable position of resuming the work and role of the prophets.  He is in genuine succession to Amos and Isaiah."  Montefiore, "What a Jew Thinks About Jesus," Hibbert Journal, 33 (1934-1935):516; Montefiore, The Old Testament and After (London: Macmillan, 1923), 229; Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillan, 1930).  Those who do not know why Montefiore would say such a startling thing haven't been reading their Bible.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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/

Would you like to summarize why this article is meaningful to you?

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There's no reliable way to identify a prophet.

If you mean there is no surefire way to identify one that can't be botched up by human weakness or deviousness, I agree.  In that sense there is also no reliable way to identify romantic love.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That sounds like idol worship to me.

It's definitely a type of relationship with God that I don't relate to.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

...................................

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. ................................

Paul Dunn should however be taken as a warning against complacency and gullibility.  Some people wisely counsel "trust but verify."  The reckless assumptions made in the past have brought multiple lawsuits against the Church for failure to exercise "due diligence."

It does us no good to assume that the nice lady who smiles at us each day when we come to work is actually honest.  If she is the sole bookkeeper for the firm, it should be standard practice to have a third party audit the books, and she should know that those books will be audited regularly.  I can imagine the shock and disappointment back in the 70s when Pres Nathan Eldon Tanner discovered that a nice lady at the Church Office Bldg had embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Church.  My comment is that he should have expected such an event and protected against it.  Such is human nature.

[MiserereNobis]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

I would qualify the claim slightly. It's not necessarily between Catholicism and Mormonism. It's between traditional pre-protestant Christianity (namely, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) and restorationism. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both accept the others' priesthood as authoritative and rites as valid. And if traditional Christianity has gone apostate, then it seems like there needs to be a restoration. Could be Joseph Smith, but not necessarily. And obviously this all rests on the need for priesthood authority, which protestants deny.

But generally speaking, I can agree with the statement. I know that 3DOP (Rory) does.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

My contention is that they (Francis and Nelson) function the same, despite one claiming to be a prophet and an apostle, so in the end it's only words, even though one sounds more grandiose than the other.

I don't think they function in the same way.  I think the claims of revelation and priesthood authority differentiate them quite a bit.

Maybe I didn't make myself quite clear. You say the difference is revelation and priesthood authority. We also claim both. The way revelation works in the LDS church appears to be quite similar as to the way it works in the Catholic church. We just don't use the word revelation, because it has a different definition to us. But we absolutely believe that the Holy Spirit "reveals" (inspires, guides, protects, gives truth to) the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Not always, of course -- they are only infallible in pretty clear and obvious circumstances.

The Catholic Church also claims priesthood authority, given directly by the apostles. The Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." From the catechism:

Quote

857 The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways: 
- she was and remains built on "the foundation of the Apostles," The witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;
- with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching, The "good deposit," the salutary words she has heard from the apostles;
- she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ's return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, "assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church's supreme pastor"

Notice the second reason connects to the Holy Spirit and "revelation." The third reason points to the bishops as the successors of the apostles. What does that mean:

Quote

The bishops - successors of the apostles

862 "Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops." Hence the Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ."

The office of apostle is permanent and is now occupied by the bishops. The bishops have the same authority as the apostles, so much so that whoever listens to the bishops is listening to the apostles and Christ Himself. The reason they are not called apostles is because that title is reserved for those who witnessed the death and resurrection of Christ. While the office and authority of the office can be transmitted through holy orders (ordination and consecration), the witness of the resurrection cannot be transmitted. That is unique to the apostles alone.

So, the Pope, and the college of bishops, do claim "revelation" and apostolic authority, like President Nelson.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

#2: Continuing Revelation and Open Canon

Now we are going to get into the issue of what the word "revelation" means in LDS and Catholicism. They are not the same, and that causes some difficulty.

I can understand and appreciate that.  But when we speak of "revelation" in a Latter-day Saint context, the concept can and ought to be construed the way Latter-day Saints intend.  When that happens, I think most of the difficulty goes away.

True, and that is why I keep using the word revelation in this discussion -- it would not really be used by a Catholic, because it has a different meaning in Catholicism. But even though the definition is different, what it appears President Nelson does when there is revelation is similar to what the Pope does, though the Pope would not call it revelation because, I said, that word means something a little different in Catholicism.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

TYPES OF REVELATION. A dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is a series of personal revelations from God. These revelations may be direct manifestations from God, as in the following typical cases:

1. theophanies (seeing God face-to-face), as in the first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which came at the beginning of the present dispensation (JS-H 1:15-20)
2. revealed knowledge from the Father that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:13-17; see also Spirit of Prophecy)
3. visitations of angelic persons, such as the appearance of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith (JS-H 1:30-32)
4. revelations through the Urim and Thummim, by which means Joseph Smith translated the book of mormon
5. open visions, as when Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were shown the kingdoms of the hereafter (see Doctrine and Covenants: Section 76)
6. physically hearing the voice of God, as is recorded in 3 Nephi 11
7. receiving the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit, as in the experience of Elijah (1 Kgs. 19);
8. receiving the gifts of the spirit (D&C 46)
9. having a burning in the bosom as an indication of the will of God, as in the explanation given to Oliver Cowdery (D&C 9:8)
10. dreams (1 Ne. 8:2-32)
11. manifestations of the Light of Christ, by which all men know good from evil (Alma 12:31-32; D&C 84:46-48).

I think you have in mind - as you have said - the more "grandiose" types of revelation, such as 1 (theophanies), 3 (visitations of angelic persons), 4 (Urim & Thummim), 5 (open visions), and so on.

Is a prophet only a prophet if he experiences a literal theophany?  I don't think so.

Yes, I see your point here. I am focusing on theophanies and such. However, if everything on that list is considered a revelation, then revelation is alive and well in Catholicism, too, since all but #4 (and maybe #9..?) have happened and continue to happen in Catholicism.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Joseph Smith was a dispensation head.  

Thanks for this new information about dispensations and dispensation heads. It was interesting to learn more. I can see your point here. 

In the closed thread, I responded to some quotes by B.H. Roberts in Rongo's article. Here's one of those quotes:

Quote

I apprehend that this Christian belief respecting the discontinuance of revelation came into existence as an excuse offered for the absence of revelation. Ministers . . . found themselves without communication with God, either through the visitation of angels or direct revelation. Finding themselves without these powers so abundantly possessed by the servants of God in the early age of the church, they attempted a defense of their own powerless state by saying these things were no longer needed. They were extraordinary powers only to be employed at the commencement of the work of God, in order to establish it in the earth, and afterwards to be put aside as childish things

Doesn't this come close to saying that only grandiose revelations are needed for dispensation heads, since they are leading the commencement of the dispensation? And once the dispensation is on its way, they aren't really necessary anymore?

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

The Pope frequently issues counsel, clarification, and understanding through papal encyclicals and apostolic constitutions. There is a list of recent ones here. He also frequently gives homilies. There is also the most solemn address Urbi et Orbi that is given 2 or 3 times a year.

So the Pope has the equivalent of general conference.

Well, sorta.  He's not claiming to be an apostle.  That's a pretty significant difference.

I covered this above, but I just want to reiterate it. Yes, the Pope does not claim the title of apostle -- that is a title reserved to those who were physical witnesses to the death and resurrection of Christ. However, he and the college of bishops most emphatically claim to have apostolic authority, the same authority and the same priesthood as the apostles. So he is claiming to be an "apostle" in the sense that has the exact same office as St. Peter.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if you similarly have tacit expectations about how prophets should act.  This would apparently involve regular production of first-person narrative writings, attributed to revelation, such as we see in the Doctrine & Covenants.  And then these regularly-produced writings would be regularly canonized.  I'm just not sure that such expectations are determinative.

I was basing my expectation on Joseph Smith. You responded that he is different because he is a dispensation head, and I can accept that in your paradigm of course. For current times, I was looking at recent actions by President Nelson as reported on this board and found them to have little difference than what the Pope does. They seem to be firmly in the camp of administration, policy, and teaching. The temple rite was changed. Popes have full authority to change liturgy and have done so many many times. The handbook of instructions was changed (same-sex marriage apostate stuff, etc.). The Pope has full authority to change Canon Law (the Catholic equivalent) and in fact has very recently done so, codifying that woman are allowed to server as readers and altar servers. Etc.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I dunno.  Official Declaration 2 is presented as a revelation from God.  The Papal pronouncement is . . . not?

Here it is again:

Quote

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory

So yes, it is presented as a revelation. This pronouncement also works as evidence that the Pope claims apostolic authority (his mention of the apostles). He also claims the authority of Christ. So the Pope's claim to authority is similar/identical to President Nelson's.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

You also include a list of what you consider contemporary revelation. Those are exactly the same sorts of things that the Pope has/can/would do.  You respond to that idea with this:

It seems pretty similar to me. There is really nothing in that list if tweaked to be related to Catholicism that I would say that the Pope couldn't do.

And yet the Pope wouldn't present it as revelation from God to his Presiding High Priest, to the senior Apostle on the earth.

See the pronouncement above. And sure, he wouldn't say presiding high priest. He would say the Successor of the Prince of Apostles, which is like senior apostle on earth, since he has supremacy and primacy over all other successors to the apostles, just like President Nelson has supremacy and primacy (I would assume) over all other LDS apostles. Very similar, just slightly different words.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is how I perceive your understanding of Joseph Smith.  Joseph performed the function of the "eye," therefore all of his successors should also have been "eyes."  But I don't think that's the way it works.  Joseph had his role to play - and it was a prominent and particularly notable one - but that doesn't mean the Lord intended for his successors to perform identical labors.  Again, I don't think Joseph could have lead the Saints west, and I don't think Brigham Young could have received Joseph's theophanies. 

Fair enough.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, it's an analogy.  A comparison of two otherwise dissimilar things.

Fair enough, too.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Very thoughtful comments, my friend.  Thank you for sharing them here.

Thank you, too, for sharing yours. I'm trying to keep up with your line-by-line parsing style. It's tough, especially with the quote/scroll/post/scroll repetitions

All the best,

Jesse

Edited February 4, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually tells you or gives you a warm fuzzy feeling about it?   Because I'm pretty sure that giving warm fuzzies is a general authority requirement. 
 

When God tells us something (also referred to as revealing something to us, or gives us revelation) God has a number of ways in which he does it.  I'm going to try to make a flow chart for you now, even though I am not an expert on making flow charts.

 

REVELATION  (big word at the top of the flow chart)

Now under the big word I am going to list various forms or types of revelation we can receive from God

Inspiration

Visions

Dreams

A thought in our mind

A warm fuzzy feeling to help us know when we are on the right track (path) to understanding what God wants us to understand

probably some more that I am not thinking of now.

Ta Da!

Oh, sorry, I got a little carried away with the big letters

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Ahab

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Quote

Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

 

When Ash brought up the Catholic reliance on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (the Pope), I thought he was going to say the LDS version was: Scripture, General Authorities, Personal Revelation. I was a bit taken back when he added reason in the comparison, because that somewhat implies that Catholics do not rely on reason to find truth. Perhaps he did not mean this, but I just want to clarify using the words of the catechism:

Quote

50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

So we're right there with ya!  

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

There's no reliable way to identify a prophet.

As I occasionally observe, there is this way.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

Is it not reliable?   A larger question is whether a person chooses to use these tests and standards, or another set of tests and standards.  And that leads to Kuhn, and paradigm debate, and the problem of deciding which wine ought to go into which wine bottles.

Quote

"Science does not deal in all possible laboritory manipulations. Instead, it selects those relevant to the juxtaposition of a paradigm [a paradigm being the standard examples from which an individual frames their approach and interpretation] with the immediate experience that the paradigm has partially determined.  As a result, scientists with different paradigm engage in different concrete laboratory manipulations."  (Kuhn, Structure, 126)

The issue is not so much whether or not that there is a reliable way to identify a prophet (try pointing the Biblical Keys at Joseph Smith compared to any other candidate), but that people can and do and in fact must chose for themselves if and when and how they are going to even try.  So, the issue has all sorts of complications, due to inherent differences in subjectivity, selectivity, contextualization, and time.   On the other side, a crucial issue is whether or not people can make a choice using standards that are not entirely self-referential, whether or not a decision is completely paradigm dependent.

Quote

In so far as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles [for for example, for us, is Joseph Smith, or anyone else a prophet and in what sense?], not a tester of paradigms.  Though he may, during the search for a particular puzzle's solution, try out a number of alternative approaches, rejecting those that fail to yield the desired result, he is not testing the paradigm when he does so.  Instead he is like a chess player who, with a problem stated and the board physically or mentally before him, tries out various alternative moves in the search for a solution.  These trial attempts, whether by the chess player or by the scientist, are trials only of themselves, not of the rules of the game."  Kuhn, 144-145.

In religious discussions, there are a great many different games around, each operating under a different rules, focused on different problems.  So the meta-issue is, How do we go about testing which paradigm is best?

Quote

The proponents of competing paradigms are always at least slightly at cross purposes. Neither side will grant all the non-empirical assumptions that the other side needs to make its case. (Kuhn, 148)

That is, since paradigm debates always involve the issue of "which problems are more significant to have solved", anyone can dismiss anyone else by saying "So what?" with reference to the claims of the other side, and redirect to their own preferred issues.

So which paradigm is better?  And how can we decide?   

Quote

“There are no rules for choice between paradigms but there are criteria of assessment independent of particular paradigms.” (Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Scienec and Religion, 113-15)

And it turns out, the "criteria of assessment indepent of particular paradigms" is where Thomas Kuhn's second edition and Alma 32 intersect.   Testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. These values may be inexact, and applied differently by different people, they do constrain choices and provide a reasonable way to navigate our differences.  We can disagree, but with reasons. (I've written this up at length several times.)  The result is:

Quote

In matters like these, the resort to shared values rather than shared rules govering individual choice may be the communities way of distributing risk and assuring the long term success of the enterprise." (Kuhn, 186)

Our knowledge, our faith, may not be perfect, but, given various testable issues, enlightening and mind expanding outcomes, fruitfulness, where stepping inside and trying out a paradigm leads to insights that we might never have imagined otherwise, beauty, deliciousness, the enlargement of our souls, and future promise all constitute valid "cause to believe," and grounds for ongoing faith.  We don't even have to just look at specific LDS doctrinal issues or Joseph Smith as a prophet, in particular.  We can approach the LDS faith from the perspective of comparative religion, and ask whether the wine of believing experience that we have compares to what is available elsewhere, whether what we have is real, whether it is perfect or not.

https://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A-Model-of-Mormon-Spiritual-Experience.pdf

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 4, 2021 by Kevin Christensen

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

......................................

So there are 28 Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets as well as patterns of inquiry to follow and bad examples to avoid.  They are freely available to anyone who seeks them.  You don't even have look them up own your own.  Just look.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

The alternative is to rely on one's own subjective preconceptions, and one's own present desires, to see whether a prophet measures up to those.  "Is he what I expect, does he agree with what I think, is he what I want him to be?" rather than, "Is his inspiration Real?"  And that is why the Biblical passages recounting arguments against Biblical prophets remain timely.

..........................

Given the modern tendencies toward polemics against the LDS Church and against Christianity in general, such apologetic  concepts are very helpful.  From my POV the main problem is, however, that moderns tend to have a very narrow view of what a "prophet" is or can be.  Rather than trying to distinguish between true and false prophets, it might be helpful to read the Bible and determine what prophets do across the broad range.  As some on this board have pointed out, that can be quite shocking.

I think of the Quakers centuries ago, walking around naked in London and in Salem, Massachusetts, just as Isaiah had walked around naked in Jerusalem.  Prophets have not always done what we expect of them.  https://www.genealogymagazine.com/quaker-sought-redress-by-undressing/

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Given the modern tendencies toward polemics against the LDS Church and against Christianity in general, such apologetic  concepts are very helpful.  From my POV the main problem is, however, that moderns tend to have a very narrow view of what a "prophet" is or can be.  Rather than trying to distinguish between true and false prophets, it might be helpful to read the Bible and determine what prophets do across the broad range.  As some on this board have pointed out, that can be quite shocking.

I think of the Quakers centuries ago, walking around naked in London and in Salem, Massachusetts, just as Isaiah had walked around naked in Jerusalem.  Prophets have not always done what we expect of them.  https://www.genealogymagazine.com/quaker-sought-redress-by-undressing/

Yeah, like wrestling.  Wasn't it a Shaker or Quaker who when he found Joseph after hearing Joseph was a prophet that Joseph asked if he wanted to wrestle?  I imagine that thought set him back a bit.  I don't usually think of prophets in a wrestling ring.

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

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.

Ok. Then the Catholic Church is awash in revelation.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

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

When Catholics say there will be no further public revelation, we are not using revelation as you defined it above. It is a very specific definition. It is God revealing his plan of loving goodness, as the catechism calls it. It happens in stages. I just learned about LDS dispensations from smac, and the Catholic stages of revelation are similar. Stage 1: God reveals Himself to Adam. Stage 2: God makes a covenant with Noah. Stage 3: God chooses Abraham. Stage 4: God chooses the people of Israel via Moses. The final stage, the complete and full revelation, is Jesus Christ.

So, when Catholics so no further public revelation, we do NOT mean all of things you listed above. What we mean is that Jesus Christ was the complete and total embodiment of the revelation of God's plan of loving goodness. There is not another stage to come. It is complete. To use LDS terminology, as I understand from recent research, Jesus was the last dispensation and there will be no other dispensation.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

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, 

That's not what I mean. See above. And please don't be condescending about my faith. Thanks.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

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?

It would be silly of me to ignore something that God reveals to me. I would do what God told me to do.

 

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have a collection of videos of sovereign citizens getting arrested while yelling "I do not consent!" if that helps.

Add that to the collection of their fellow travelers claiming that the gold fringe around the flag means something profound.

I once followed this type of tripe but saw pretty quickly that it was a path to nowhere. Except possibly jail.

It doesn't mean that they are always wrong. Just mostly.

[Ahab]

38 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ok. Then the Catholic Church is awash in revelation.

When Catholics say there will be no further public revelation, we are not using revelation as you defined it above. It is a very specific definition. It is God revealing his plan of loving goodness, as the catechism calls it. It happens in stages. I just learned about LDS dispensations from smac, and the Catholic stages of revelation are similar. Stage 1: God reveals Himself to Adam. Stage 2: God makes a covenant with Noah. Stage 3: God chooses Abraham. Stage 4: God chooses the people of Israel via Moses. The final stage, the complete and full revelation, is Jesus Christ.

So, when Catholics so no further public revelation, we do NOT mean all of things you listed above. What we mean is that Jesus Christ was the complete and total embodiment of the revelation of God's plan of loving goodness. There is not another stage to come. It is complete. To use LDS terminology, as I understand from recent research, Jesus was the last dispensation and there will be no other dispensation.

I can see how the different meanings of words is causing some confusion but I don't think the best solution would be for us to stop using the word revelation for what we understand it to mean.  Yes, Jesus as his/our Father's son is a full and complete revelation from our Father to show/reveal to us what our Father is like and was like before he was resurrected.  And since the apostles saw Jesus both before and after he was resurrected they could see how our Father was in both of those stages, mortal before being resurrected.  And Adam saw our Father and Jesus in the garden of Eden before he fell/became mortal so Adam saw what they both revealed about themselves when they visited him in that garden.  Our Father as Jesus was after he was resurrected and Jesus with only a spirit body because he had not been born into a mortal body of flesh and also was not resurrected yet.

So maybe what we need to say is that at times it is necessary for our Father and Jesus to reveal/show things to us AGAIN even after he has already revealed/shown those things to others in the past.  A restoration of what has already been revealed, rather than something totally new that never has been revealed before.  Even the Book of Mormon is nothing new, just more of the same kind of thing our Father amd Jesus have been revealing since the beginning of our life on this planet, starting with Adam and then repeated at different times and then finally a total restoration of all things that have been revealed since that beginning.

Quote

That's not what I mean. See above. And please don't be condescending about my faith. Thanks.

Sounded like that to me, but I am open to more clarification from you about what you think and believe as you reveal yourself more to me.

Quote

It would be silly of me to ignore something that God reveals to me. I would do what God told me to do.

Good.  Then read the Book of Mormon with fresh eyes and see it for all of the truth that was revealed from God in it.  It doesn't need to be anything new to be some of what God has revealed in the past.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Ahab

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So maybe what we need to say is that at times it is necessary for our Father and Jesus to reveal/show things to us AGAIN even after he has already revealed/shown those things to others in the past.  A restoration of what has already been revealed, rather than something totally new that never has been revealed before. 

And of course this is where the LDS church and the Catholic church part ways  There is no restoration needed, because there was no apostasy. You obviously believe differently. If I'm using my newly found LDS terminology correctly, we believe that the last dispensation was with Jesus, while you believe the last dispensation was with Joseph Smith.

I'm actually happy to have learned about dispensations. It will allow me to explain what Catholics mean by no more public revelation.

No more public revelation since Jesus means that Jesus was the last dispensation.

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Quote

That's not what I mean. See above. And please don't be condescending about my faith. Thanks.

Sounded like that to me, but I am open to more clarification from you about what you think and believe as you reveal yourself more to me.

It is true that I believe in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium, but the way you said it was condescending. And I don't believe these things just because someone told me to. I have used my reason and have had spiritual experiences as my confirmation. The Blessed Virgin Mary was instrumental in my conversion -- her gentle love and guidance led me to the Catholic Church. I feel the love and grace of God during most Masses and almost without fail during confession. I became and remain a Catholic for probably the same reasons you became and remain LDS.

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Good.  Then read the Book of Mormon with fresh eyes and see it for all of the truth that was revealed from God in it.  It doesn't need to be anything new to be some of what God has revealed in the past.

I have read some parts of the Book of Mormon, skipping around here and there. It seems like a standard religious text. I had no particular intellectual or spiritual experience with it. While I am obviously interested in Mormonism (hence my presence here), I am a firm and faithful Catholic. My years of participation on this board has given me no reason to question my faith.

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yeah, like wrestling.  Wasn't it a Shaker or Quaker who when he found Joseph after hearing Joseph was a prophet that Joseph asked if he wanted to wrestle?  I imagine that thought set him back a bit.  I don't usually think of prophets in a wrestling ring.

Yes.  Joseph liked wrestling and would do it right out on the street.  He would also play mumbley-peg with his knife. 

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Sorry didn't mean to quote MN

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As I occasionally observe, there is this way.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

Is it not reliable?   A larger question is whether a person chooses to use these tests and standards, or another set of tests and standards.  And that leads to Kuhn, and paradigm debate, and the problem of deciding which wine ought to go into which wine bottles.

The issue is not so much whether or not that there is a reliable way to identify a prophet (try pointing the Biblical Keys at Joseph Smith compared to any other candidate), but that people can and do and in fact must chose for themselves if and when and how they are going to even try.  So, the issue has all sorts of complications, due to inherent differences in subjectivity, selectivity, contextualization, and time.   On the other side, a crucial issue is whether or not people can make a choice using standards that are not entirely self-referential, whether or not a decision is completely paradigm dependent.

In religious discussions, there are a great many different games around, each operating under a different rules, focused on different problems.  So the meta-issue is, How do we go about testing which paradigm is best?

That is, since paradigm debates always involve the issue of "which problems are more significant to have solved", anyone can dismiss anyone else by saying "So what?" with reference to the claims of the other side, and redirect to their own preferred issues.

So which paradigm is better?  And how can we decide?   

And it turns out, the "criteria of assessment indepent of particular paradigms" is where Thomas Kuhn's second edition and Alma 32 intersect.   Testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. These values may be inexact, and applied differently by different people, they do constrain choices and provide a reasonable way to navigate our differences.  We can disagree, but with reasons. (I've written this up at length several times.)  The result is:

Our knowledge, our faith, may not be perfect, but, given various testable issues, enlightening and mind expanding outcomes, fruitfulness, where stepping inside and trying out a paradigm leads to insights that we might never have imagined otherwise, beauty, deliciousness, the enlargement of our souls, and future promise all constitute valid "cause to believe," and grounds for ongoing faith.  We don't even have to just look at specific LDS doctrinal issues or Joseph Smith as a prophet, in particular.  We can approach the LDS faith from the perspective of comparative religion, and ask whether the wine of believing experience that we have compares to what is available elsewhere, whether what we have is real, whether it is perfect or not.

https://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A-Model-of-Mormon-Spiritual-Experience.pdf

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

A Biblical guide? That also depends upon the assumption that a prophet and prophets have already been identified.

Speaking of Kuhn and paradigm shifts, surely if one commits to the testing of one dogma they necessarily reject the simultaneous testing of all other mutually exclusive paradigms.

It doesn't have to be a choice of choosing to test unprovable claims verses other unprovable claims. One could argue that all such attempts run contrary to living with integrity in what one can claim, and contrary to yielding the fruitfullness of that more simple, humble foundation.

It really is important to learn to manage uncertainty while holding fast to fact. I think that that is much more important than seeking a shortcut.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Meadowchik

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And of course this is where the LDS church and the Catholic church part ways  There is no restoration needed, because there was no apostasy.

And of course this is where it becomes evident who has accepted more of what God has revealed, because according to what God has revealed there was an apostasy since the time our Lord came here for his mortal ministry. 

And you saying there wasn't doesn't override what God has revealed.

Quote

You obviously believe differently. If I'm using my newly found LDS terminology correctly, we believe that the last dispensation was with Jesus, while you believe the last dispensation was with Joseph Smith.

Yes, with the final and last dispensation as the dispensation of restoration of all things since the beginning.

Quote

I'm actually happy to have learned about dispensations. It will allow me to explain what Catholics mean by no more public revelation.

You'll also need to explain who you consider the public to be.  People die so there are different people living now than those who lived here 2000 years ago.

Quote

No more public revelation since Jesus means that Jesus was the last dispensation.

Jesus was every dispensation, beginning with the first and now in the dispensation of restoration of all things, even things that have been hid since the beginning.

Quote

It is true that I believe in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium, but the way you said it was condescending. And I don't believe these things just because someone told me to. I have used my reason and have had spiritual experiences as my confirmation. The Blessed Virgin Mary was instrumental in my conversion -- her gentle love and guidance led me to the Catholic Church. I feel the love and grace of God during most Masses and almost without fail during confession. I became and remain a Catholic for probably the same reasons you became and remain LDS.

No, not the same reasons, obviously, otherwise you would be doing what I did by joining the true church of Jesus Christ... the one that is really true rather than the one you believe is true.

 

Quote

I have read some parts of the Book of Mormon, skipping around here and there. It seems like a standard religious text. I had no particular intellectual or spiritual experience with it. While I am obviously interested in Mormonism (hence my presence here), I am a firm and faithful Catholic. My years of participation on this board has given me no reason to question my faith.

Okay.  Maybe it will just take you a lot longer to see what I saw.  Or maybe you never will see it.  Out of my hands and not my problem.  I hope someday you will qualify for every good blessing you can receive from our Father and Jesus Christ.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Ahab

[MiserereNobis]

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

52 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And of course this is where the LDS church and the Catholic church part ways  There is no restoration needed, because there was no apostasy.

And of course this is where it becomes evident who has accepted more of what God has revealed, because according to what God has revealed there was an apostasy since the time our Lord came here for his mortal ministry. 

And you saying there wasn't doesn't override what God has revealed.

 

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, not the same reasons, obviously, otherwise you would be doing what I did by joining the true church of Jesus Christ... the one that is really true rather than the one you believe is true.

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Okay.  Maybe it will just take you a lot longer to see what I saw.  Or maybe you never will see it.  Out of my hands and not my problem.  I hope someday you will qualify for every good blessing you can receive from our Father and Jesus Christ.

Ahab, sometimes you can be an ***. I don't think you mean to be, but that doesn't change it.

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Ahab, sometimes you can be an ***. I don't think you mean to be, but that doesn't change it.

 

You saying there was no apostasy when you know or at least should know that we know there was somehow makes you the good guy here?  I do mean to be what I am but I don't think you really know what I am.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You saying there was no apostasy when you know or at least should know that we know there was somehow makes you the good guy here?  I do mean to be what I am but I don't think you really know what I am.

Ahab, once again you are losing this debate  

 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Ahab, once again you are losing this debate  

 

Once again you are wrong.  And regardless of how many people agree with your opinion on this, you are still wrong.

[mrmarklin]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

One of my former BYU ward members claims to see visions. The message from them is that Covid vaccines were created in Hell, and that taking one will stamp one's body with the Mark of the Beast. This person assures me that angels attend them and that this is a message from God. They seem very sure that this is revelation.

It might well be.  FOR THEM.  The rest of us should get our own revelation.😉

[Peacefully]

@MiserereNobis, there’s one in every crowd. Please don’t judge all of us “Mormons” by a few holier-than-thous. I appreciate your different take on things, otherwise, this could turn into an LDS echo-chamber. You’ve found your way to be in this world and I’ve found mine. I hope our respective faiths can work together to heal this broken world. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Peacefully