• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Modern-Day Prophets

dan

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Dan, I consider my relationship with all LDS in this forum to be good. I didn't really appreciate your taunting tone and I ask that you reconsider your type of expression.

You may have misinterpreted my expression. I was expressing surprise that you intend to find enough writings from before AD 100 to put together any kind of thesis. I can only think of two Christian writings that can be at all accurately dated from that time period - Clement and Hermas. If you intend to find any theology in there related to LDS then I say to you Good luck! I have read them at length and can find evidence to support much in the way of baptism for the dead and other doctrines of ours, but then again I don't know what exactly you're searching for.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
dan said:
You may have misinterpreted my expression. I was expressing surprise that you intend to find enough writings from before AD 100 to put together any kind of thesis. I can only think of two Christian writings that can be at all accurately dated from that time period - Clement and Hermas. If you intend to find any theology in there related to LDS then I say to you Good luck! I have read them at length and can find evidence to support much in the way of baptism for the dead and other doctrines of ours, but then again I don't know what exactly you're searching for.

I know for sure that I won't find LDS theology in it. That's my point....:D
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
I know for sure that I won't find LDS theology in it. That's my point....:D

Then dispute Dan's claim that he has found LDS theology such as baptism for the dead in it.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
nutshell said:
Then dispute Dan's claim that he has found LDS theology such as baptism for the dead in it.

Them is fightin words...:p
Not here, not now. I got enough going on at the moment. Baptism for the dead is off topic.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Them is fightin words...:p
Not here, not now. I got enough going on at the moment. Baptism for the dead is off topic.

Well, I wouldn't really be able to participate in the debate anyway since I've never read the writings Dan refers to.

:cool:
 

uumckk16

Active Member
Polaris said:
Good point. There is nothing to stop you from creating your own story, and there is really no way to difinitively prove your story to be true, even if it were. The best way for anyone to determine the validity of your claims would be to consider the following questions:

- Are you a good, honest person?
- Are your claims doctrinally compatible with the scriptures (in the context of this thread I'm assuming a Christian premise)?
- Are the principles you portray in harmony with those that Christ taught?
- Are the "fruits" of your vision and subsequent actions and teachings good (i.e. by their fruits ye shall know them)?

If all these conditions are met then there is good reason to take your claims seriously. I agree with becky though, the only way for one to really know the truth is from God through the Holy Ghost.
I hope you don't mind me jumping in here! :D I apologize for disrupting your conversation (especially as I am neither LDS nor Christian at all). :eek:

I just had a question pertaining to the above post, as it is something I have always been curious about. I would assume that anyone with a good knowledge of scripture could claim revelations in accordance with the last 3 bullet points you listed. Therefore you would be left to the first bullet point - if the person is a good, honest person. How do you know that they are? I am just making an assumption here, but something tells me the majority of LDS have never met the majority of the prophets (particularly those who have been deceased for nearly 2,000 years). So do you just take the word of others that these are good, honest people? I suppose there is the last point that you mentioned, the Holy Ghost, that confirms it for you...but how do you know the difference between you simply believing that they are prophets and therefore believing the Holy Ghost has confirmed it for you, and the Holy Ghost actually confirming it for you?

Sorry again, and I mean no harm by my questions. I love the LDS that I know, y'all are pretty cool. Just please humor me...I'm simply curious. :)
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
uumckk16 said:
I hope you don't mind me jumping in here! :D I apologize for disrupting your conversation (especially as I am neither LDS nor Christian at all). :eek:

I just had a question pertaining to the above post, as it is something I have always been curious about. I would assume that anyone with a good knowledge of scripture could claim revelations in accordance with the last 3 bullet points you listed. Therefore you would be left to the first bullet point - if the person is a good, honest person. How do you know that they are? I am just making an assumption here, but something tells me the majority of LDS have never met the majority of the prophets (particularly those who have been deceased for nearly 2,000 years). So do you just take the word of others that these are good, honest people? I suppose there is the last point that you mentioned, the Holy Ghost, that confirms it for you...but how do you know the difference between you simply believing that they are prophets and therefore believing the Holy Ghost has confirmed it for you, and the Holy Ghost actually confirming it for you?

Sorry again, and I mean no harm by my questions. I love the LDS that I know, y'all are pretty cool. Just please humor me...I'm simply curious. :)

As you deduce yourself it is through confirmation of the HOly Ghost that we know these people are prophets. It's exactly the same way that Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ. It's revealed through the Spirit and we know this is difference than our own hopeful feelings because truth and/or knowledge is gained through the experience.
 

uumckk16

Active Member
nutshell said:
As you deduce yourself it is through confirmation of the HOly Ghost that we know these people are prophets. It's exactly the same way that Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ. It's revealed through the Spirit and we know this is difference than our own hopeful feelings because truth and/or knowledge is gained through the experience.

Okay, thank you. :)
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Them is fightin words...:p
Not here, not now. I got enough going on at the moment. Baptism for the dead is off topic.

Sorry. This hadn't been posted when I began my post.
 

Polaris

Active Member
Victor said:
When the Church declares that [public] revelation is closed and that no further word from God is forthcoming, many people think it is saying that God clammed up in 90 AD, retired in stony silence to the utmost heaven of heavens and ceased showing himself to us mortals.

In reality, though, the Church means that, in offering His Son Jesus and in setting forth the fullness of the gospel through Him and His Apostles, God has already given us possession of the fullness of His gift to us, the gift of Himself (and once God has given God Himself, there's not much to add.)

Just because Christ has come and atoned for our sins doesn't mean that God doesn't have more to teach us.

Victor said:
If this is unclear, perhaps an illustration will help us get the hang of it. Compare, for example, the Catholic gospel with the Mormon picture of things. For the Catholic, the gospel in New Testament times was like a newborn baby. The Church has never denied the reality that baby must grow up and experience life more deeply. Indeed, the Lord Jesus assured us that He would lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13) and that the Church would deepen and grow in faith and understanding. But He said that this would happen, not via "new revelation" but via the Spirit reminding us of everything He has already said to us (John 14:26).

And that is exactly why Councils, infallibility, etc. are held. To REMIND, CLARIFY, what is already DEFINED.

In John 16:13 Jesus didn't say that He himself personally would lead the church into all truth. He said the "Spirit of truth... will guide you into all truth". That sounds like continued revelation to me.

Also, let's take a closer look at John 14:26:

"But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your rememberance whatsoever I have said unto you."

This verse specifically says he will teach us all things AND bring previously taught doctrines to our rememberance. The Holy Ghost doesn't just remind us, he also helps us to learn truths.
 

Polaris

Active Member
BUDDY said:
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.
Revelation (public revelation, progressive revelation, whatever you want to call it) serves three important purposes:
1. Establishment of new doctrinal truths.
2. Clarification and appropriate preservation of previously established truths.
3. General inspired guidance and leadership for God's people.

#1 - The Bible definitely gives us a good blueprint for how to live a happy and righteous life, but that doesn't mean God doesn't have more to teach us. Without some revelatory declaration from God himself stating otherwise, why should we assume that He no longer has important knowledge to share with us? What gives you or anyone else, other than God, the authority to declare that God has nothing more to reveal to us, especially when prophets like Amos and Isaiah have declared otherwise. Does it specifically say somewhere in the NT that God has no more beneficial truths to teach us?

#2 - It is true that the Bible contains many of the foundational truths pertinent to our salvation. But the Bible on its own introduces ambiguity regarding the truth. It is open to interpretation as is evidenced by the many denominational differences. Proper interpretation of the Bible itself requires revelation. Tradition isn't sufficient because man on his own is prone to error. Continued reveleation is necessary to preserve the purity of the Biblical truths. In addition to that, the Bible raises about as many questions as it answers. It is not a complete doctrinal reference guide. There are many doctrines that are briefly passed over without any depth or detailed explanations (eg. preaching of the gospel to the dead, baptism for the dead, marriage in general, etc). It is only through revelation to a prophet of God that can truly clarify such truths.

#3 - While the Bible contains many important teachings, it's by no means a complete, all-encompassing church leadership guide book. We face considerably different challenges than those presented in the first century. Times change, societies change, technologies change, the world changes, and the church needs to be able to adapt, respond, and grow accordingly. Did God really intend for the guidance of His church to be led by popular vote, or the best efforts of fallible men? I don't believe He did. The people of God have always been led by prophets and/or apostles who recieved continued revelation so that they could lead the people according to the will of God and not according to the will and limited understanding of man.
 

Polaris

Active Member
uumckk16 said:
I just had a question pertaining to the above post, as it is something I have always been curious about. I would assume that anyone with a good knowledge of scripture could claim revelations in accordance with the last 3 bullet points you listed. Therefore you would be left to the first bullet point - if the person is a good, honest person. How do you know that they are? I am just making an assumption here, but something tells me the majority of LDS have never met the majority of the prophets (particularly those who have been deceased for nearly 2,000 years). So do you just take the word of others that these are good, honest people? I suppose there is the last point that you mentioned, the Holy Ghost, that confirms it for you...but how do you know the difference between you simply believing that they are prophets and therefore believing the Holy Ghost has confirmed it for you, and the Holy Ghost actually confirming it for you?

You're more than welcome to ask questions or contribute as you like.

Good question. Obviously we can't know for sure what the ancient prophets were like, whether they really were men of integrity and honesty. I agree with nutshell that God, through the Holy Ghost, is the only one who can confirm spiritual truths to us. Also, you can often catch at least a glimpse of someone's character through the message they convey. Certain teachings just feel good, or just feel right. I believe that is how God helps us to recognize truth.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
BUDDY said:
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.
Hi, Buddy.

If the Bible truly did contain everything we need to know, I believe that one such thing would be some sort of declaration that this is the case. There is, however, nowhere in the Bible where this is stated or even indirectly implied. Furthermore, the Bible itself refers to various books and letters that (based on the context in which they are mentioned) appear to have been inspired but which are not found within its pages. Why were they omitted? Were they lost or was a decision made not to include them?

There are over 30,000 different Christian denominations in the world today. With the exception of a handful, all of them are made up of people who are convinced that the Bible "contains everything that the Christian needs in order to get to Heaven." But no two of these thousands of denominations interpret the Bible in exactly the same way. You have seen for yourself some of the varying opinions that exist among members of this forum alone regarding doctrines that the Bible apparently does not present in such a way that they are understood the same way by everyone who reads it. As I recall, you are a firm believer (as am I) in the need for baptism. Other Christians will argue (as you have seen them do) that it is optional. And they base their beliefs upon their interpretation of the Bible. A living prophet, called by God himself, and speaking in behalf of God, would be able to set the record straight.

How, when Christianity is so divided, can anyone say that we no longer need a living prophet?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Polaris said:
Just because Christ has come and atoned for our sins doesn't mean that God doesn't have more to teach us.

Of course He does. John 14 is clear that he would send the Holy Spirit to teach them "all things". All things ended with the Apostolic era.

Polaris said:
In John 16:13 Jesus didn't say that He himself personally would lead the church into all truth. He said the "Spirit of truth... will guide you into all truth". That sounds like continued revelation to me.
It is continued revelation until "all things" are taught.
John 14:26
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.
If God intends to teach "all things" it clearly indicates an end to public revelation.
What am I missing here?
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Of course He does. John 14 is clear that he would send the Holy Spirit to teach them "all things". All things ended with the Apostolic era.

If there is no more to be taught by God after the Apostolic era, why did the Catholic church alter so much teaching so early on, and why does it continue to alter it today? It seems to me that if "all things" were already taken care of then there would be no need for dozens upon dozens of councils and edicts.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
dan said:
If there is no more to be taught by God after the Apostolic era, why did the Catholic church alter so much teaching so early on, and why does it continue to alter it today? It seems to me that if "all things" were already taken care of then there would be no need for dozens upon dozens of councils and edicts.

I answered that question in post #58...

If you want a more thorough explanation go to post # 59 here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18554&page=6&highlight=dogma
 

Polaris

Active Member
Victor said:
Of course He does. John 14 is clear that he would send the Holy Spirit to teach them "all things". All things ended with the Apostolic era.

It is continued revelation until "all things" are taught.

So when and who declared that we had officially received all things? Who authoratively delcared that all things ended with the Apostolic era?

Victor said:
John 14:26
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.
If God intends to teach "all things" it clearly indicates an end to public revelation.
What am I missing here?

I don't hold to an absolute interpretation for "all things" like you apparently do. If "all things" have already been revealed to us, why are there so many unanswered questions, and why are there still mysteries? We know "all things" that God knows? Wow, his knowledge isn't so infinite after all.

Sorry, but I believe God has greater knowledge than what he as chosen to impart to this point. He always has more he can teach us. As long as He is God (which will be always) there will always be more that we can learn from him.

I believe a more realistic interpretation for "all things" is "all things that we are ready for or in need of at the time". Eventually I do believe that we can come to know all things in an absolute sense as we continue to progress and become like our Father, but that won't happen in this life.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Polaris said:
So when and who declared that we had officially received all things? Who authoratively delcared that all things ended with the Apostolic era?

A Church in whom you do not accept it's authority. The Universal and Apostolic Catholic Church.

Hermas [80 A.D.] for example had a private revelation that the Church's structure and all it needs was coming to an end. Ten years later St. John died and public revelation ended.

The mere fact that no further writings beyond St. John was canonized should be a good sign that public revelation ended. ;)

Polaris said:
I don't hold to an absolute interpretation for "all things" like you apparently do. If "all things" have already been revealed to us, why are there so many unanswered questions, and why are there still mysteries? We know "all things" that God knows? Wow, his knowledge isn't so infinite after all.

Sorry, but I believe God has greater knowledge than what he as chosen to impart to this point. He always has more he can teach us. As long as He is God (which will be always) there will always be more that we can learn from him.

I believe a more realistic interpretation for "all things" is "all things that we are ready for or in need of at the time". Eventually I do believe that we can come to know all things in an absolute sense as we continue to progress and become like our Father, but that won't happen in this life.

What else can "all things" mean aside from my literal interpretation?
Can it mean "not all things"? :)
 

Polaris

Active Member
Victor said:
A Church in whom you do not accept it's authority. The Universal and Apostolic Catholic Church.

Hermas [80 A.D.] for example had a private revelation that the Church's structure and all it needs was coming to an end. Ten years later St. John died and public revelation ended.

The mere fact that no further writings beyond St. John was canonized should be a good sign that public revelation ended. ;)


So Hermas had authority to declare an end to revelation, but wasn't deemed worthy to have his writing canonized? That's odd. How can we know his declaration was truly inspired of God, he obviously wasn't a prophet?

The fact that there were no longer inspired men whose teachings were worthy of canonization is a good sign that the apostasy actually occurred.

Victor said:
What else can "all things" mean aside from my literal interpretation?
Can it mean "not all things"? :)

So are you suggesting that because we know "all things", we know all that God knows?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Polaris said:
So Hermas had authority to declare an end to revelation, but wasn't deemed worthy to have his writing canonized? That's odd. How can we know his declaration was truly inspired of God, he obviously wasn't a prophet?
It's only odd because your misunderstanding. The level of authority did play "some" role in canonization. But it should be obvious to you that not all the apostles writings were canonized and some weren't even apostles. The selection process is complex and something that you should perhaps consider picking up a book on. After all, we do share the same Bible...;) .
Polaris said:
The fact that there were no longer inspired men whose teachings were worthy of canonization is a good sign that the apostasy actually occurred.
Oh really? Tell me, have you added the latest revelations of your Presidents to the Book of Mormon? If not why not?
Polaris said:
So are you suggesting that because we know "all things", we know all that God knows?
A question for a question....ok..:areyoucra
I take "all things" to mean all things God wanted us to know and what we could handle in our limited state.
 
Top