Modern-Day Prophets (priest, tradition, contradiction, doctrine, church)

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by Victor

When you say "cannon" I'm thinking you added it literally to the Book of Mormon.

No, actually the compilation of modern revelations is known as the Doctrine and Covenants. This is where any new scripture will be added. Usually the BoM, D&C and Pearl of Great Price are bound in a single volume (often times along with the OT and NT actually), so it can be easy to confuse them if you don't know the difference.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Still, it's a legitimate question. Jesus Christ established His Church on a foundation of prophets and apostles, and Paul stated that this organization was to continue to exist until we all came into the unity of our faith in Christ and understanding of His Gospel. Therefore, the question -- Why do Christians other than the Latter-day Saints not believe in the need for prophets in this day and age? -- is a valid one, and it's one that should be of interest to all Christians.

Well, I'm sorry to have to burst your bubble, but the divisiveness of which you speak has been around since the time of the Apostles, which is precisely why Paul warned about it.

In Ephesians 4:11-13, we read, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..."

Without the foundation of prophets and apostles in tact, Christianity was doomed to become sectarian before it even got off the ground. During the few few centuries after Christ's death, Christiantiy was extremely fragmented. As a matter of fact, there was no clear line between orthodoxy and heresy until well into the second century, and the Catholic tradition was only a part of a still larger movement. Why? Because the foundation of the Church had crumbled. Christ himself prophesied that the apostles and prophets he would send would be persecuted and even killed. Christianity is not the happy little family we all wish it was. It is highly disfunctional and the Latter-day Saints are no more to blame for this than anyone else.

See, it's this kind of sarcasm that bugs me.

Yes they do, and you won't hear the Latter-day Saints claiming otherwise. Each and every Christian who sincerely tries to emulate our Savior furthers God's kingdom on earth. Unfortunately, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the men God has appointed to act as His spokesmen -- now as in ancient times. So, back to the question, which you still haven't answered: Why do you deny the need for prophets in this day and age? Have we outgrown them? Are we so sophisticated that they would have nothing of value to teach us? Does God no longer care to communicate with us? Is He no longer capable? Is the Bible so crystal clear about everything that we can get all of our answers from reading it? If that's the case, why do you think so many sincere people continue to disagree on so many points of doctrine?

And if Jesus has appointed Popes to lead His Church, the question would be a valid one. Since He didn't, I don't believe it is.

It's not that we don't see the need for prophecy. We just don't see the need as being filled in the same way as the LDS do.

Heh...it was around when Jesus was still teaching. Don't you remember the disciples arguing amongst themselves? And that divisiveness undermined Jesus' teaching then, just as it does today.

I wan't blaming LDS -- I was blaimg sectarianism -- which we're all guilty of.

Didn't mean to be sarcastic. I meant it to be sincere. I'm not saying you're wrong for having prophets. I'm saying that, if you want to believe in your prophets, go ahead. You'll get no argument from me. I will defend vehemently your right to worship as you believe in this country.

This a sematics problem. Your prophets speak for God and act as the human spiritual figurehead for your church. The Pope may speak authoritatively, just as Hinckley can. The difference is that y'all see "prophet" as a specific office with a specific function, whereas most of the rest of us see "prophet" as less of a specific office.

And the semantics problems continue. "Pope" is a human, extra-Biblical term. The Pope is considered to be part of the Apostlate, just as all the other modern bishops. But the leadership role he plays in leading the church is similar to the leadership role of your prophets. Does the Pope prophesy? Maybe. I'm convinced that the Popes have experienced divine revelation. I agree with Victor here.

I don't deny the need for prophecy. I think there have been many people that have prophesied in more modern times. But we don't appoint those people to divine offices, necessarily...nor should we...in my opinion. You all may, if you wish.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Polaris

If numerous prophets arose in different sects that taught and supported contradicting doctrines, then both couldn't be true prophets. God is not a God of confusion. He would not send a prophet to one group of people to teach one thing, then send another prophet to a different group to teach something that contradicts the first. That makes no sense. If there were truly multiple prophets sent by God they would teach the exact same doctrinal truths.

Did not Joseph Smith teach doctrine that contradicted the orthodox belief? And did that not create more confusion within the Body of Christ by causing yet another split? How do you know that Joseph Smith was not the one that was "wrong?" (And please don't misunderstand...I'm not contending that he was -- I just want to know how you arrived at your conclusion, based upon using your criteria above.) Obviously, LDS prophets do not speak to the Church as a whole, but to the LDS branch only. How do you reconcile this practice with your statement above?

Can Hinckley not present a different perspective from Ratzinger? And can the two perspectives not serve to broaden and enrich the perspective of the whole Body, rather than cause confusion? Why can't they both be true? What's to prevent the revelation of both to be true...just from differing perspective?

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by BUDDY

What additional doctrinal truth is needed outside of the Bible? I believe the Bible contains everything that christian needs in order to go to heaven (which is the point of all of this), which means that I also believe that it contains everything that is needed in order to live righteously. So, while you may contend that God offer continual revelation through prophets in the LDS church, one of the reasons that I see that as not being true is because it is not needed in my opinion.

There is the basis of your argument. This is why you're not a Mormon. But...your individual opinion cannot negate the truth of prophets for millions of Mormons. They believe strongly in their prophets. Difference of opinion does not serve to negate truth. You and I may not accept truth as it has been shown to Mormons. They may not accept truth as it has been revealed to you and me. But, ultimately, truth is truth, whatever form it takes and we would all do well to consider the perspectives of our brothers and sisters before we take off on a tangent and assume that "we're right and you're wrong."

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Did not Joseph Smith teach doctrine that contradicted the orthodox belief? And did that not create more confusion within the Body of Christ by causing yet another split? How do you know that Joseph Smith was not the one that was "wrong?"

That's my whole point. Because God is not the author of confusion or contradiction, both Joseph Smith and orthodox belief cannot be correct. Because they teach conflicting doctrines, one or both have to be wrong.

Originally Posted by sojourner

Can Hinckley not present a different perspective from Ratzinger? And can the two perspectives not serve to broaden and enrich the perspective of the whole Body, rather than cause confusion? Why can't they both be true? What's to prevent the revelation of both to be true...just from differing perspective?

To a certain extent they can both teach true doctrines, but there are certain doctrines that conflict or contradict each other. Those conflicting doctrines can't both be correct (i.e. truly inspired of God). God is not the author of contradicting doctrines.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Polaris

That's my whole point. Because God is not the author of confusion or contradiction, both Joseph Smith and orthodox belief cannot be correct. Because they teach conflicting doctrines, one or both have to be wrong.



To a certain extent they can both teach true doctrines, but there are certain doctrines that conflict or contradict each other. Those conflicting doctrines can't both be correct (i.e. truly inspired of God). God is not the author of contradicting doctrines.

Ah, but are we not arguing from the limited, human perspective? Joseph Smith could only posit the truth as he perceived it. Ditto the Apostles. Do not both sides of the fence propose to be the Body of Christ? We live in a three-dimensional world. Why do we insist that the Body of Christ be one-dimensional?

My rebuttal to the argument is that there is more to the Body of Christ than the face we see. You have modern prophets. Good for you! Perhaps that's a side that the rest of us should take more seriously. We have apostolic authority. Perhaps that's a side that you all should take more seriously.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Ah, but are we not arguing from the limited, human perspective? Joseph Smith could only posit the truth as he perceived it. Ditto the Apostles. Do not both sides of the fence propose to be the Body of Christ? We live in a three-dimensional world. Why do we insist that the Body of Christ be one-dimensional?

It appears this is coming down to a "relative truth" vs. "absolute truth" argument. I firmly believe that truth is absolute. If there were multiple prophets on the earth they would not teach contradicting doctrines -- if they were truly inspired, their perceived interpretations would be correct and in complete harmony with one another. The fact is that the various religious denominations are not in complete harmony with each other because not all are fully inspired by God.

Originally Posted by sojourner

My rebuttal to the argument is that there is more to the Body of Christ than the face we see. You have modern prophets. Good for you! Perhaps that's a side that the rest of us should take more seriously. We have apostolic authority. Perhaps that's a side that you all should take more seriously.

This is a perfect example of the point I'm trying to make. Joseph Smith taught that the apostolic authority had been taken from the earth. That wasn't just his "perceived" belief. Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph to restore Apostolic authority because it had in fact been lost from off the face of the earth. So either Joseph Smith was the means by which Apostolic authority was restored, and true apostolic authority is found only in the church he helped to establish, or it's not, in which case you may be right when you say that you have apostolic authority. Both cannot be true.

[Quiddity]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Interesting article. So would you consider any non-Greek translation of the NT to be ipsisima verba or ipsisima vox?

ipsisima verba because we have access to the word for word. That isn't necessarily the case with ipsisima vox.

Originally Posted by Polaris

I'm not so concerned with ipsisima verba as I am with the appropriate ipsisima vox. I just want the truth regardless of how it is worded.

I agree...Or even if it's not written, right?

Originally Posted by Polaris

The problem is sometimes the ipsisima verba is somewhat ambiguous and without inspired help from God we may imply an incorrect ipsisima vox. That's the issue here.

Divine Inspiration is restricted to the Apostolic era and to the Scriptures. We do believe in inspiration on a private level (private revelation) but it has no bearing on the Church as a whole. The difference is that one was intended for the Church as a whole, the other has a more isolated purpose.

Originally Posted by Polaris

If Herma's declaration wasn't ipsisima verba, how can we know that his ipsisima vox was correct?

This is a question for a Canon Lawyer......
But I'll give it a shot. We can know in two ways:
1. Historical accuracy ---> Did what he say happen and was it at odds with what was being taught.
2. Holy Tradition ---> Which is no more then ipsisima vox

I don't agree with this principle. Sure for this dumbed-down example inspiration is not needed. But concerning spiritual truths that are based off ancient writings that can sometimes be ambiguous, the truth is not always obvious and requires inspired help from God to be able to merit any amount of reasonable trust.

I still think you are seeing inspiration different then me. Catholics along with LDS believe guidance is crucial for preserving truth. Our difference lies in that Catholics don't believe "inspiration" is needed to preserve truth or that new information is needed. For he came to teach us "all things" he wanted us to know. In LDS teaching "all things" apparently mean something else besides "all things".

Originally Posted by Polaris

1. Why would Christ establish a pattern for identifying true prophets (Matt 7) if there weren't going to be any more of them?

You'd have to ask someone who doesn't believe prophets exist today...
That's certainly not me.

Originally Posted by Polaris

2. With clear scriptural evidence that prophets and revelation are important why should we trust Herma's uninspired declaration that revelation and prophets should come to an end?

You don't have to. That was just an example. Historical readings suffice for me to be comfortable in conjunction with Biblical evidence.

Peace be with you,
~Victor

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Polaris

It appears this is coming down to a "relative truth" vs. "absolute truth" argument. I firmly believe that truth is absolute. If there were multiple prophets on the earth they would not teach contradicting doctrines -- if they were truly inspired, their perceived interpretations would be correct and in complete harmony with one another. The fact is that the various religious denominations are not in complete harmony with each other because not all are fully inspired by God.



This is a perfect example of the point I'm trying to make. Joseph Smith taught that the apostolic authority had been taken from the earth. That wasn't just his "perceived" belief. Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph to restore Apostolic authority because it had in fact been lost from off the face of the earth. So either Joseph Smith was the means by which Apostolic authority was restored, and true apostolic authority is found only in the church he helped to establish, or it's not, in which case you may be right when you say that you have apostolic authority. Both cannot be true.

Then truth can only be perceived from a single viewpoint and is one-dimensional. I just don't think God is that rigid.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Victor

This is a question for a Canon Lawyer......

Here's the problem. If I want to know how ipsisima verba (ie scripture) should be interpreted, I'm not going to go to some Canon Lawyer. He's human, his understanding concerning God's truths is limited, he's prone to error. Canon lawyers can make mistakes, tradition is suseptible to error. A true living prophet on the other hand, who receives revelation from God concerning doctrinal truths, is a much more reliable source -- He is authorized to speak with God. "God will do nothing but he revealeth his secrets to his servants the prophets." This is how God has always guided his people.

Originally Posted by Victor

I still think you are seeing inspiration different then me. Catholics along with LDS believe guidance is crucial for preserving truth. Our difference lies in that Catholics don't believe "inspiration" is needed to preserve truth or that new information is needed.

But inspiration IS needed. Without divine inspiration man makes mistakes regarding the proper interpretation and understanding of doctrine. Without divnine inspiration errors are bound to creep in -- man is prone to error.

Originally Posted by Victor

For he came to teach us "all things" he wanted us to know. In LDS teaching "all things" apparently mean something else besides "all things".

As I mentioned before "all things" means "all things that we are ready for and in need of at the time". As we become more receptive, better prepared, and as our needs change, we become worthy of additional information. God ALWAYS has more to teach us. Whether He actually does so is dependant on our readiness and our needs.