Which ones? This thread is already 8 pages.please refer to my arguments above. thanks.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which ones? This thread is already 8 pages.please refer to my arguments above. thanks.
The problem with option 2 is that none of these men are stupid. Scott noted some of their backgrounds. Most have achieved impressive credentials in education, medicine, law, and business. For them to be honestly fooled is highly unlikely, to say the least. I have watched them for years, some for decades. I have listened to and read their words year after year. Their wisdom is never lacking. Their personal reputations and conduct are impeccable. They travel the world in their work to lead the Church, talk to and mingle in all cultures. They meet with government leaders of the world. You can read their talks on lds.org and see for yourself.I don't know any of them, and my personal feeling is that option 2 is the most likely of the 3, but my point was mainly with the logic Scott presented: he didn't say that he knows the prophets in question to be individually honest and of good character, and not the sort of people to lie about things like this; he said that because 90% of the membership of the LDS Church are good, then the prophets of the LDS Church must be good as well. This logic doesn't work. It doesn't mean that the prophets are bad people; it just means that Scott's argument is a bad one.
The problem with option 2 is that none of these men are stupid. Scott noted some of their backgrounds. Most have achieved impressive credentials in education, medicine, law, and business. For them to be honestly fooled is highly unlikely, to say the least. I have watched them for years, some for decades. I have listened to and read their words year after year. Their wisdom is never lacking. Their personal reputations and conduct are impeccable. They travel the world in their work to lead the Church, talk to and mingle in all cultures. They meet with government leaders of the world. You can read their talks on lds.org and see for yourself.
Is this knowledge of the Truth (or Untruth) transferable? Can the example of Truth (or Untruth) be demonstrated in fact and reality and be provable in the form that cannot be denied but offer others the option to accept or reject?
Please explain to me how seeing an angel or hearing a voice, defining or producing a spirit that can only be described as holy using the post that I have outlined in red would thoroughly, Truthfully (without a doubt) originate with a/the One True GOD and not be mistaken or misinterpreted for a hallucinatory figment of ones imagination or a mental or a personal (or mass) emotional normality or disorder.
So if a person received and documented communications today (like the people of the Old and New Testament did) from a Being claiming to be GOD (like the people of the Old and New Testament did) you would willingly incorporate, follow and adhere to this revelators inspired writings?
Why would some religions require or encourage missionaries to go into service then? What is this for? Who is this for?
I would probably direct the prophets of old to the above outline directed in red? If I lived back 2000 or 3000 years ago, how do you think they would do on this test? Comparing what the prophets of old wrote to the reality of today, how well do you think they would perform on my test? Would it be well enough for everyone to no longer require faith? Would it well enough to reduce the number of interpretations and organizations that religions promote today?
Which ones? This thread is already 8 pages.
I don't understand this post. sorry.We all have
Ed Dufresne Ministries
Juanita Bynum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
just 2 in a list of hundreds
I don't understand this post. sorry.
why are your 15 different then the two I linked?
You're comparing the apostles and prophet of the LDS Church to a TV evangelist? Have you been reading this thread? Do you know anything about the men we've been describing? I'm not criticizing you, but I'm a little taken aback.why are your 15 different then the two I linked?
You're comparing the apostles and prophet of the LDS Church to a TV evangelist? Have you been reading this thread? Do you know anything about the men we've been describing? I'm not criticizing you, but I'm a little taken aback.
This makes no sense. According to adherents.com, there are ~11,000,000 Mormons. Assuming that 90% of them are honest, that still leaves more than a million who aren't. This is more than adequate as a pool from which to draw 15 people.
Also, you're slipping a condition in there without any defense: why do you automatically assume that Apostles are chosen out of the ranks of honest Mormons?
And think of a similar argument to yours: if 90% of devout, honest Mormons make no claim to prophethood, then it's unlikely that most, some, or even any of them would ever claim to be a prophet. Doesn't that speak against the possibility of them being genuinely prophets just as much as what you're suggesting?
Let me see if I can break down what you're suggesting:
- by virtue of their status as prophets, the 15 prophets of the LDS church are different from other Church members. This difference has its foundation in something.
- it would be very unlikely that they would be lying, so the odds are negligible that that would be the root of the difference.
- it would be very unlikely that they would be deluded or deceived, so the odds are negligible that that would be the root of the difference.
- therefore, without any consideration of its odds, the only option remaining is that they are legitimate prophets ordained by God, which by elimination must be correct.
A Prophet does 3 things:
1) Teaches, a Prophet is a teacher. That is the essential meaning of the word. He teaches the body of truth, the Gospel, revealed by the Lord to man; and under inspiration explains it to the understanding of the people. He is an expounder of truth. Also, he shows that the way to human happiness is through obedience to God's Law. the purpose of his life is to uphold the Lord's plan of salvation. all this he does by close communion with the Lord, until he is "full of power, even the spirit of the Lord" (Micah 3:8)
2) Seer. A seer is one who sees with spiritual eyes. He perceives the meaning of that which seems obscure to others; therefore he is an interpreter and clarifier of eternal truth. He forsees the future from the past and the present. This he does by the power of the Lord operating through him directly, or indirectly with the aid of divine instruments such as the urim and Thummim. He is one who walks in the Lord's light with open eyes.
3) Revelator. A revelator makes known, with the Lord's help, something before unknown. It may be new or forgotten truth, or a new or forgotten application of known truth to man's need. Always the revelator deals with Truth, certain Truth and always it comes with the divine stamp of approval. Revelation may be recieved in various ways, but it always presupposes that the revelator has so lived and conducted himself as to be in tune with the divine spirit of revelation, the spirit of truth, and therefore capable or recieving divine messages.
Sounds like the two I just listed. Prove me wrong. They are not just "TV evangelist", but also prophets
thanks for posting your refrences. that was my post, thanks. and you have to couple that witht he other 6 questions.
those TV evangelists are profiting from thier ventures. they are not Prophets, they are captialists.
I'm afraid I find 2 (specifically the misinterpretation) to be the most likely, followed by 3.If a person claims to be a prophet of God, one of the following must be true:
1. The person knows he is a prophet, is telling the truth, and is a prophet.
2. The person thinks he's a prophet, is telling the truth of what he believes, but is deceived (by Satan, mental disorder, low intelligence, doesn't understand what a prophet is, misinterprets personal experiences, etc., etc.) and is not a prophet.
3. The person knows he is not a prophet, is intentionally lying, and is not a prophet.
That's an awfully convenient prohibition.Let's discuss (2). All 15 men claim to be prophets and apostles. They claim to have had sacred spiritual experiences, after which God specifically commanded them to not reveal it, due to its sacredness, and due to the fact that many would ridicule. Joseph Smith was commanded to speak freely of his revelations, but in our day, the prophets have been commanded to not speak so freely of theirs.
And, having been so called, they must be under enormous pressure to live up to that calling. I don't find it at all unreasonable that one might lie about that.Since we're on (2), let's consider if 15 men can be so deceived? It would not just be 15, but all 15 over the years from Joseph Smith forward. These men are highly intelligent. I already established their honesty. They come from the ranks of educators, heart surgeons, state supreme court judges, Harvard professors, scientists. and other reputable positions. They are men of great accomplishment and talent. These are not men who decided at some point in life that they wanted to enter the ministry because they felt "called". These are men who were literally plucked up from what they were doing and asked to serve in their current church position.
Ah, but it's so easy to mistake one's own beliefs and ideas for God's.Knowing what I know about these 15 men, it's inconceivable to me that they are all deceived. They are too well grounded to all believe that they have had these miraculous revelations when they really didn't happen. It would be like believing that all 11 Apostles were deceived when Christ appeared to them after the resurrection and told them to touch his body and see for themselves.
But they're not inconceivable to one who is not indoctrinated to the faith. :sorry1:If 2 and 3 are inconceivable, that leaves 1. Think about it.
The president is also supplied with a home. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 27, 1994, p. E1, the president of the LDS Church lives in a "downtown condominium, the official residence of church presidents." In the Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 8, 1988, we read "The $1.2 million condominium at 40 N. State that is home to the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be exempt from property taxes, Salt Lake County commissioners ruled Tuesday."
Sounds like the president is a "captialists" also.