• 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!

Why Don't We Need Prophets Anymore?

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
sojourner said:
Scripture, Tradition, and reason. Is the prophecy grounded in scirptural truth? Is it complimentary to the Tradition? Is it reasonable?

How can you be certain that an "official" prophet is not "off his rocker?"
I'll go along with scripture. I'd go along with tradition if that tradition clearly had its roots in truth, but I'm not sure it does. And what you may find reasonable, I may not find reasonable.

Jesus called men as prophets before He died. Do you think He would have called someone who was "off his rocker"? What would make you think that He would call someone to be a prophet today who was "off his rocker"?
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Katzpur said:
Okay, but just as an example, let's go back to the Council at Nicea in 325 A.D. Weren't all of those in attendance equally entitled to the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Why the degree of contention at that Council? I'm not saying I think Arius was right in his thinking, because I don't. But he wasn't the only one who held his point of view. What reason (other than that you think Arius was wrong) can you give me for the outcome of that council? The participants debated, argued, and voted, and in the end, the majority ruled. A different group of participants, the Nicene Creed might have read much differently than it does. Who, after all, writes history? Certainly not the losers.

For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. (Matt 18:20)

Perhaps it was that the Holy Spirit was there among them, guiding them as a community. Perhaps the Spirit does Her work in the relationships between people, the consultations ( no matter how heated it may be at times) and emerging in the outcome.

It's a thought.

luna
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
But why did Jesus ordain prophets before He died if He had no intention of continuing to speak to them? And why did He specifically warn against "false prophets"? If there were to be no more "true prophets," why didn't He simply warn against "prophets" period?

I don't have an issue with prophets. We're told that in the latter days, man will prophesie. I believe this and I believe that Christ does speak through prophets.

But I don't need a prophet to tell me what I need to know to become reconciled with my Father.

It's all written within the pages of the Holy Bible. And according to the Word, when you accept Christ, pick up your own cross and follow him...forsaking the world and the flesh...you will be reconciled with God. That's what He expects of us. We're to live as Christ lived and die as Christ died...abandoning our flesh. It's hard...it's a day to day struggle...when we goof...we repent and keep on trucking with our own crosses on our back...praising Him and giving Him all the glory through good times and bad.

Anything that a prophet reveals is just icing upon an already baked cake. When a prophet claims to know the secret ingredients to change the cake recipe...that's where I have a problem.

I don't know if that makes any sense but this is how I feel. It is because of Christ's warning against false prophets, that I cannot accept the validity of many who claim to be prophets.

I believe wholeheartedly in spiritual gifts. I believe 100% that a Christian can be given the gift of prophesy and can prophesie to edify the church. The Word says that this is so. Discomfort settles in my bones when that Christian is then revered for their prophesy. No man deserves such glory. Glory be to God for sending His Son and choosing worthy men to write it all out for us...the way we should live and die to be reconciled with Him.

Yes, He did. But somehow, we as Christians don't all seem to be picking up the same message from the Holy Spirit. If we were, you, Victor, Lunamoth, Sojourner, Joeboonda and I would all share the same beliefs. While it's true that we all believe Jesus Christ to be our Savior (which is obviously the most important thing), there are many things on which we don't agree. It's easy to say that God doesn't care, but it sure seems logical to me that He would want us all to know the truth about Him, about our relationship to Him, and what we must do (if anything ;) ) to return to His presence someday.

I think the message from the Holy Spirit is the same...

I think we taint it.

I believe that Christians don't agree on many things because we've placed quite a bit of focus on the religious aspect of faith...and not the spiritual aspect of faith. I think we've allowed our traditions, our churches, our own minds to alter the way we process messages from the Holy Spirit.

And I wouldn't doubt if I'm the only one who feels this way...but this is my honest heart felt opinion. We're supposed to be ONE Body.

As far as returning to God Almighty...I have all I need within me as well as within the pages of the Holy Bible. There's nothing else that needs to be added to the cake. The cake is done.

And I think my question to people who feel that the words of prophets are so important...what is it that's unclear? What is missing from the Bible? What did God not give us? How is His Word and instruction incomplete?

What are we searching for...that hasn't already been given to us?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
lunamoth said:
For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. (Matt 18:20)

Perhaps it was that the Holy Spirit was there among them, guiding them as a community. Perhaps the Spirit does Her work in the relationships between people, the consultations ( no matter how heated it may be at times) and emerging in the outcome.

It's a thought.

luna
Judging from the threats received by those who didn't go along with the decision of the majority, it strikes me as more likely that the Holy Spirit didn't have a whole lot to do with the decision. And wasn't Arius just as entitled to the guidance of the Holy Spirit as those who opposed him?

But, as you pointed out, my perspective, too, is just "a thought." :)
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
So what I don't get is that most everybody is okay with prophets that were 'revered' in the Old Testament, but now-a-days that's a big no-no....

Explain why?

They aren't exactly 'revering them' but honoring them as you would your father, mother, etc. I honor my grandfather as much as I honor Joseph Smith. I know Joseph Smith is a prophet but yet, in my eyes, he is equal to my grandfather.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
beckysoup61 said:
So what I don't get is that most everybody is okay with prophets that were 'revered' in the Old Testament, but now-a-days that's a big no-no....

Explain why?

They aren't exactly 'revering them' but honoring them as you would your father, mother, etc. I honor my grandfather as much as I honor Joseph Smith. I know Joseph Smith is a prophet but yet, in my eyes, he is equal to my grandfather.

I don't want to offend you or any member of the LDS church because I care about your feelings and respect the fact that you choose to worship and believe as you do. So, I want you to know that my intent isn't to hurt you in any way or make you feel like I'm degrading you and your religion...I'm simply going to try to answer your question the best way I know how.

Just to illustrate how differently I revere people who I consider to be prophets and you do (again...not meant as an attack)...

Joseph Smith is a part of your religion. He's a part of your church services. His book is a significant part of your religion.

Those that I revere as modern prophets wrote books too and those books hang out on my book shelf and I don't liken my feelings towards them to the feelings I have towards my Grandparents. These prophets are not a part of my religion.

As far as the OT prophets are concerned...they spoke of Jesus Christ. But I don't revere them. My adoration is for God Almighty for speaking through them.
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
dawny0826 said:
My adoration is for God Almighty for speaking through them.
We feel the same about Joseph Smith. He may seem like he is a big deal, and he is, but that's how most of us feel.


Edit: I guess my prophet/grandparent comparision didn't come out how I wanted it. :no::sorry1:

I'm horrible as a bee in winter with analogies.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
beckysoup61 said:
We feel the same about Joseph Smith. He may seem like he is a big deal, and he is, but that's how most of us feel.


Edit: I guess my prophet/grandparent comparision didn't come out how I wanted it. :no::sorry1:

I'm horrible as a bee in winter with analogies.

No problem, Becky. And I do hope you know that I wasn't trying to belittle you in any way.

(I'm not sure yet what Kathryn is going to say about my cake analogy.:D )

The point I was trying to make is that I think you regard Joseph Smith on a much higher level than I regard certain Pentecostal Evangelists who I consider to be prophets. And that's fine, to each their own but for sake of argument...this is where I'm coming from when I speak of prophets.

The prophet may be credible but I don't think the prophet is needed in terms of my salvation.

(Here's my bad analogy again...) The cake is baked. Any prophesy is icing upon the cake.
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
dawny0826 said:
No problem, Becky. And I do hope you know that I wasn't trying to belittle you in any way.

(I'm not sure yet what Kathryn is going to say about my cake analogy.:D )

The point I was trying to make is that I think you regard Joseph Smith on a much higher level than I regard certain Pentecostal Evangelists who I consider to be prophets. And that's fine, to each their own but for sake of argument...this is where I'm coming from when I speak of prophets.

The prophet may be credible but I don't think the prophet is needed in terms of my salvation.

(Here's my bad analogy again...) The cake is baked. Any prophesy is icing upon the cake.

Personally, as a person, I put Joseph Smith on the same level as Moses, Joshua, and Noah.

Making an assumption that we all do, may be a bit dangerous. Some of us do and some don't. I personally don't.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
beckysoup61 said:
Personally, as a person, I put Joseph Smith on the same level as Moses, Joshua, and Noah.

Making an assumption that we all do, may be a bit dangerous. Some of us do and some don't. I personally don't.

It was foolish of me to use "all".

I think I'm following you.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
dawny0826 said:
(I'm not sure yet what Kathryn is going to say about my cake analogy.:D )
I like cake, but I kind of prefer pie. :D Now, I'm going to go respond to your posts.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
dawny0826 said:
It's all written within the pages of the Holy Bible.
I'm just curious what makes you so sure of this? The Bible itself does not tell us that it contains all of what we must know. That's merely an assumption on your part, but it doesn't seem to have much basis in reason. As a matter of fact, we're told in the Bible that Jesus did so many things that were not even recorded that, if they had been recorded, "even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Now unless you figure that the vast majority of what He said and did was not of any particular importance, it would not make much sense to insist that one relatively brief (especially if we're only talking about the New Testament) collection of writings covers everything God would have us know. I realize this is what you believe, and I respect your strong convictions. I just don't understand the rationale behind them.

And according to the Word, when you accept Christ, pick up your own cross and follow him...forsaking the world and the flesh...you will be reconciled with God. That's what He expects of us. We're to live as Christ lived and die as Christ died...abandoning our flesh. It's hard...it's a day to day struggle...when we goof...we repent and keep on trucking with our own crosses on our back...praising Him and giving Him all the glory through good times and bad.
I agree. As always, the way you have expressed yourself is evidence of your strong faith and humility. I am always touched by your testimony of Christ.

Anything that a prophet reveals is just icing upon an already baked cake.
Ah, now we come to the issue of the cake. :D Personally, I think that the frosting can add a lot to even the best cake!

When a prophet claims to know the secret ingredients to change the cake recipe...that's where I have a problem.
Here's where I'm starting to get lost. I believe I know you well enough, Dawn, to know that you are not trying to be insulting with this comment. I don't want to respond until you've clarified in plain, straightforward English what you mean with the reference to "the secret ingredients to change the cake recipe." Would you mind addressing that issue? Then I'll give you my comments.

I don't know if that makes any sense but this is how I feel. It is because of Christ's warning against false prophets, that I cannot accept the validity of many who claim to be prophets.
Of course it makes sense, but why do you think Christ specifically warned against "false" prophets? If He had wanted us to reject all prophets, He would certainly have put it that way, particularly since He personally called prophets whom He would speak to after He'd left this earth.

I believe wholeheartedly in spiritual gifts. I believe 100% that a Christian can be given the gift of prophesy and can prophesie to edify the church. The Word says that this is so. Discomfort settles in my bones when that Christian is then revered for their prophesy. No man deserves such glory. Glory be to God for sending His Son and choosing worthy men to write it all out for us...the way we should live and die to be reconciled with Him.
In Hebrews 5:1-4, we read about those individuals who have been "ordained... in things pertaining to God." Verse 4 states, "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Being called of God as a prophet truly is an honor. But God's prophets serve Him and constantly remind us to serve Him. The glory isn't theirs; it's God's and His alone. I think it's a mistake for you to think we see our prophets as being anything more than good men whom God chose to fulfill a purpose. They certainly don't see themselves as anything more than that. I personally don't believe there is a more humble servant of God living today than our living prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley. Matthew 10:41 states, "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward..." Clearly, Jesus wanted us to listen to the prophets He would call and heed their advice. He wanted us to love and respect and honor them, which we do. He did not want us to worship them, which we don't.

I think the message from the Holy Spirit is the same...

I think we taint it.

I believe that Christians don't agree on many things because we've placed quite a bit of focus on the religious aspect of faith...and not the spiritual aspect of faith. I think we've allowed our traditions, our churches, our own minds to alter the way we process messages from the Holy Spirit.

And I wouldn't doubt if I'm the only one who feels this way...but this is my honest heart felt opinion. We're supposed to be ONE Body.
Yes, we are supposed to be ONE body, but we aren't. Instead we have become "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine." This is exactly what Paul prophesied would happen if the foundation of prophets and apostles that Christ built His Church on ceased to exist.

As far as returning to God Almighty...I have all I need within me as well as within the pages of the Holy Bible. There's nothing else that needs to be added to the cake. The cake is done.
It may be done, Dawn, but it's better with frosting. :)

And I think my question to people who feel that the words of prophets are so important...what is it that's unclear?
Well, for starters, it appears the Bible is unclear as to whether or not we still need prophets today. ;) I strongly feel that we do; you feel just as strongly that we don't. Plus, it appears from the number of threads you can find on the Christian forums of RF, quite a few other topics would qualify as being "unclear," too.

What is missing from the Bible?
Do you mean besides the roughly 20 or so books that are mentioned by name in the Bible, such as additional epistles by Paul and others? And what about all of the things Jesus said and did that no one wrote down. Those are obviously missing.

What did God not give us?
Well, He probably gave the Christians of Christ's day pretty much everything they needed to know. Unfortunately, not all of what He gave them has endured through two millenia.

How is His Word and instruction incomplete?
It's not as incomplete now as it was prior to 1830. :) But God gives His children what they need to know, "line upon line, precept upon precept." The problem is, many of them simply refuse to even consider the possibility that God's not through giving us more knowledge -- even though I have yet to hear a single logicial reason as to why.

What are we searching for...that hasn't already been given to us?
The fulness of the Gospel. The Gospel as it was delivered by Jesus Christ to His followers but which was lost during the Apostasy that Paul warned was starting to take place even as he spoke. The truth which John prophesied in Revelation would, in the latter days, be delivered by an angel who "[would have] the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell upon the earth." The "restitution of all things" which had been lost, which the ancient prophets said would take place prior to the Second Coming of Christ.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
I'm just curious what makes you so sure of this?

Because it's there. We're told how to obtain salvation and how to live within the Bible. I already know what I need to do to be reconciled with my Father. He already told me. And via the Holy Spirit...the Word is brought to life and I'm shown in further detail HOW I'm to apply the Word to my personal circumstances.

Within the Word...we're told WHY we needed Christ. We're shown HOW we are to live and commune with our Father. We're told what to believe to obtain salvation and Christ teaches us how we are to die to live. It's all there. And the Holy Spirit is my comforter, my teacher and my intercessor.

I personally, need no more. I attend church to nurture my spirit...to praise with others...but I have what I need within me and right in front of me.

The Bible itself does not tell us that it contains all of what we must know.

It doesn't have to, as far as I'm concerned.

That's merely an assumption on your part, but it doesn't seem to have much of a basis in reason.

Is faith really rationale? Christians in general assume quite a bit.

As a matter of fact, we're told in the Bible that Jesus did so many things that were not even recorded that, if they had been recorded, "even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

And I think we were given what was essential to come to Him.

Okay, I'm curious how you'd answer this one. Let's say...you are a non-denominational Christian and you know nothing of your current religion...so everything that is specific to your current religious denomination...you have no knowledge of.

But you've heard the gospel. You know that everlasting life is found only in Christ. You're not yet a member of a church but you have a Holy Bible in your posession.

Is that enough to live your life as a Christian...in confidence of your salvation?

Even if you apply this to your life now. Okay, crazy scenario. You're put under a scary looking machine that wipes out your memory. But before you're placed under the scary machine...you're told that you can keep ONE tangible book or object from your faith. What would you keep with you...to find your way back to God?

(Golly gee whiz...I think I'll start a thread with this one.)

unless you figure that the vast majority of what He said and did was not of any particular importance, it would not make much sense to insist that one relatively brief (especially if we're only talking about the New Testament) collection of writings covers everything God would have us know. I realize this is what you believe, and I respect your strong convictions. I just don't understand the rationale behind them.

I believe that God reveals mysteries and truths to us in our personal lives as we learn and grow spiritually. And I would prefer to receive this from the Holy Spirit as opposed to a prophet. It's all part of establishing a personal relationship with Christ. I'm not to forsake the assembly and I'm supposed to fellowship with other Christians but if I didn't listen to a word that another Christian said and instead focused my time and energies to establishing a personal relationship with Christ...I'm no less saved. I may be one lonely Christian girl but I'm still saved.

There doesn't have to be any rationale behind what I accept on faith. And I know that this goes both ways. ;)

Ah, now we come to the issue of the cake. Personally, I think that the frosting can add a lot to even the best cake!

Yeah...but frosting is a bonus...not a necessity.

Here's where I'm starting to get lost. I believe I know you well enough, Dawn, to know that you are not trying to be insulting with this comment. I don't want to respond until you've clarified in plain, straightforward English what you mean with the reference to "the secret ingredients to change the cake recipe." Would you mind addressing that issue? Then I'll give you my comments.

Please, forget my analogy. It really wasn't the best.

To address the issue...I personally could not trust any prophet from any faith who claimed truths that aren't already mentioned within the pages of the Bible. And this would be anyone revered as or claiming to be a prophet...this isn't denominationally specific.

I believe that a true prophet would edify the church. Christ died so that we could receive Him. And I believe that He speaks to us each individually and gives us what we need to live our lives. And I'm reluctant to seek answers beyond the Word and beyond the Holy Spirit. I don't need men to speak to me when God is speaking to me personally.

That doesn't mean that I don't think He speaks to us through people. I've stated before...I totally believe that there are prophets but I believe their purpose is to edify the church by reiterating the events that have already been foretold within the Word.
Of course it makes sense, but why do you think Christ specifically warned against "false" prophets? If He had wanted us to reject all prophets, He would certainly have put it that way, particularly since He personally called prophets whom He would speak to after He'd left this earth.

I think that my view of what a prophet's role may differ from yours. (Correct me, if I'm wrong.) I don't believe that the job of the prophet is to foresee events and truths that we've never been told about as much as I believe their purpose is to reiterate events and truths that have already been established and foretold.

And if you ask me for proof...I don't have any. I just don't understand the need for prophecy that hasn't already been established. I don't understand what more we need.

Here are definitions of the world "prophet". (Taken of course, from my trusty Corel Word Perfect 12 dictionary)

prophet >noun (fem. prophetess) 1 an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. 2 a person who predicts the future. 3 a person who advocates a new belief or theory.

I could consider my Pastor a prophet. And he doesn't predict the future...he reiterates what's within the Word. And if he advocated a new belief or theory...I might leave the church.

It may be done, Dawn, but it's better with frosting.

(My silly cake analogy.:D ) And the wrong type of frosting could ruin the cake. The cake is the foundation...the cake is the meat...the bulk. You can't have cake without the cake. You can have cake without the frosting. (And I promise, I'll never use analogies. I'm not that good with them. LOL!)

Well, for starters, it appears the Bible is unclear as to whether or not we still need prophets today. I strongly feel that we do; you feel just as strongly that we don't. Plus, it appears from the number of threads you can find on the Christian forums of RF, quite a few other topics would qualify as being "unclear," too.

I agree.

Those are obviously missing.

They may be missing but I have a very strong hunch...with or without them...God's plan for our salvation is the same. Christ Jesus.

Well, He probably gave the Christians of Christ's day pretty much everything they needed to know. Unfortunately, not all of what He gave them has endured through two millenia.

I guess I just can't understand dissatisfaction in what we do have. If we had every single book that was inspired by God and pertains to the teachings of Christ...John 3:16 still stands.

I do believe that God reveals truths and mysteries to us through the Holy Spirit. But I don't believe that there will be new revelation beyond what we've been given. I think the true knowledge is found in the Truth...which is Jesus Christ. He does speak to us!

However, if someone claimed to have recieved a divine revelation that isn't covered within the Bible about the future...I'd have to raise my brows. Even IF I'm 100% wrong and Rev. 22:16 ONLY applies to the book of Revelations...still...no man should add or take away from any of the prophecies contained within the book of Revelation which clearly God did want us to know in its entirety without adding to it or discounting any of it.

If any man claimed something that wasn't remotely outlined for the end times of mankind in the book of Revelation...I couldn't believe it.

As far as learning from prophets such as Pastors and teachers...that's a bit different. And it depends on how one defines prophet.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Katzpur said:
Okay, but just as an example, let's go back to the Council at Nicea in 325 A.D. Weren't all of those in attendance equally entitled to the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Why the degree of contention at that Council? I'm not saying I think Arius was right in his thinking, because I don't. But he wasn't the only one who held his point of view. What reason (other than that you think Arius was wrong) can you give me for the outcome of that council? The participants debated, argued, and voted, and in the end, the majority ruled. A different group of participants, the Nicene Creed might have read much differently than it does. Who, after all, writes history? Certainly not the losers.

Where in Scripture is the guidance of the Holy Spirit guaranteed to an individual? Christ said He would be with us when we gather in His name and that is what the representatives at Nicea did. We don't believe that God guides individuals in the way you seem to assume but rather the entire Church. If, for the sake of argument, the Arians had won out at Nicea then I'm convinced that the council would have been rejected by the Church as a whole and we would not now be talking of it as the first Ecumenical Council but rather as a Robber Council. It wouldn't be the only council that this happened to. You seem to be under the impression that a council meets, comes to a conclusion and then this is binding on the Church. This is not true. Councils are only recognised as Ecumenical after the fact and once the rest of the Church agrees that they are such. This includes the laiety and councils have indeed been rejected by them.

I'd also note that you are rather misrepresenting the council by suggesting that it was nothing but a talking shop with a majority vote. The final decrees of the council were almost unanimously upheld, there was the episode of the miracle with St. Spyridon and many of those who had initially sided with Arius's heresy had changed their opnions before the end of the council and before the anathematisation of the heresy. Anyone who thinks that the delegates of that council were in any way likely to compromise their faith by coming to some sort of democratic political settlement really needs to look into who those delegates were and what they had recently survived. The idea of almost any of them making any sort of a compromise is practically inconceivable unless they were truly convinced that their previous views were in error.

James
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
dawny0826 said:
Because it's there. We're told how to obtain salvation and how to live within the Bible. I already know what I need to do to be reconciled with my Father. He already told me. And via the Holy Spirit...the Word is brought to life and I'm shown in further detail HOW I'm to apply the Word to my personal circumstances.

Within the Word...we're told WHY we needed Christ. We're shown HOW we are to live and commune with our Father. We're told what to believe to obtain salvation and Christ teaches us how we are to die to live. It's all there. And the Holy Spirit is my comforter, my teacher and my intercessor.

I personally, need no more. I attend church to nurture my spirit...to praise with others...but I have what I need within me and right in front of me.
Well, for your sake, I hope you're right. And to a large extent, I believe that you are. It's just that I see salvation itself a little bit differently than you do. I don't doubt for a minute that you will be "saved" and that the Bible gives you all of the information you need to be "saved" as you understand the term "salvation."

Is faith really rationale? Christians in general assume quite a bit.
Of course we do. All of us do, but that's not what I was trying to get at. I was simply trying to understand why you would close your mind to the possibility that there was additional knowledge out there when there seems to me to be no good reason to do so. It just doesn't make sense to me that anyone would not want to gain as much knowledge about God as possible. To simply say "I know all I need to know" seems to me to be so self-limiting.

Okay, I'm curious how you'd answer this one. Let's say...you are a non-denominational Christian and you know nothing of your current religion...so everything that is specific to your current religious denomination...you have no knowledge of.

But you've heard the gospel. You know that everlasting life is found only in Christ. You're not yet a member of a church but you have a Holy Bible in your posession.

Is that enough to live your life as a Christian...in confidence of your salvation?
Again, it depends on what you mean by "salvation." I don't even believe that it's necessary to be a Christian in order to attain some level of salvation. So if, by salvation, you mean "going to heaven," sure, I think you would be assured of salvation by a belief in Christ and a life lived in accordance with what the Bible teaches.

Yeah...but frosting is a bonus...not a necessity.
Neither is cake, Dawn. Bread... now that's a necessity. The bread of life. :D

To address the issue...I personally could not trust any prophet from any faith who claimed truths that aren't already mentioned within the pages of the Bible.
But you haven't explained why. You believe the Bible is all we need, even though the Bible itself doesn't claim to be all we need. You apparently acknowledge (at least I've not heard you deny) that Jesus Christ himself called prophets. And yet you apparently don't think there was a need for them after He died. It's honestly not my intention to drive this into the ground, but it just makes no sense to me. When there are obviously many, many doctrines that Christians whose only source for truth is the Bible don't agree on, it just boggles my mind to think that anyone would simply dismiss the words of a prophet God sent to clarify those doctrines. To simply say, "If it's not in the Bible, it couldn't possible be from God" just doesn't make sense to me. Now if the Bible claimed to be what you claim it is, I could see your point. But since it doesn't, I just continue to struggle with the idea that anyone would close his mind to the possibility that God had more to say.

I believe that a true prophet would edify the church. Christ died so that we could receive Him. And I believe that He speaks to us each individually and gives us what we need to live our lives. And I'm reluctant to seek answers beyond the Word and beyond the Holy Spirit. I don't need men to speak to me when God is speaking to me personally.
I agree. A true prophet would definitely edify the Church. I can understand why any Christian would be hesitant to seek answers beyond the Word and the Holy Spirit. It's just that I believe "the Word" to be more comprehensive than you do. I believe it to encompass everything God has said and that everything God has said was not miraculously preserved to find its way into the pages of the Bible.

That doesn't mean that I don't think He speaks to us through people. I've stated before...I totally believe that there are prophets but I believe their purpose is to edify the church by reiterating the events that have already been foretold within the Word.
For the most part, so do I. Maybe you have misunderstood what we Latter-day Saints believe the role of a prophet to be. While it would certainly be possible for God to tell His living prophet something that was to happen in the future, the primary role of a prophet is to help us to correctly understand the scriptures we have and to remind us how we need to be living our lives.

I think that my view of what a prophet's role may differ from yours. (Correct me, if I'm wrong.) I don't believe that the job of the prophet is to foresee events and truths that we've never been told about as much as I believe their purpose is to reiterate events and truths that have already been established and foretold.
As I have already said, this is what I believe, too. Although I also believe, as the Bible says, that "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." God has made us a promise, and it's recorded in the holy scriptures. Why wouldn't He keep that promise?

And if you ask me for proof...I don't have any. I just don't understand the need for prophecy that hasn't already been established. I don't understand what more we need.
Well, I'm not going to ask you for proof, so don't worry about that. To me, denying that there is anything of importance out there that you don't already know is like a kid who has just graduated from high school insisting that now that he has his diploma, there is no need to get any more education. He's passed all of the required classes and anything else he might learn is nothing more than "frosting." :D (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Here are definitions of the world "prophet". (Taken of course, from my trusty Corel Word Perfect 12 dictionary)

prophet >noun (fem. prophetess) 1 an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. 2 a person who predicts the future. 3 a person who advocates a new belief or theory.

I could consider my Pastor a prophet. And he doesn't predict the future...he reiterates what's within the Word. And if he advocated a new belief or theory...I might leave the church.
Well, you could consider him a prophet, but that wouldn't mean God did. Ephesians 4:11 states, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." I'd say it's far more likely that your pastor is simply a pastor.

(My silly cake analogy.:D ) And the wrong type of frosting could ruin the cake. The cake is the foundation...the cake is the meat...the bulk. You can't have cake without the cake. You can have cake without the frosting. (And I promise, I'll never use analogies. I'm not that good with them. LOL!)
:D Okay, and I promise I'll never refer to this one again.

However, if someone claimed to have recieved a divine revelation that isn't covered within the Bible about the future...I'd have to raise my brows. Even IF I'm 100% wrong and Rev. 22:16 ONLY applies to the book of Revelations...still...no man should add or take away from any of the prophecies contained within the book of Revelation which clearly God did want us to know in its entirety without adding to it or discounting any of it.
I agree. And nobody I'm aware of has attempted to add to the book of Revelation. The book makes it pretty clear that what would happen to such a person.

If any man claimed something that wasn't remotely outlined for the end times of mankind in the book of Revelation...I couldn't believe it.
All revelations don't need to concern what's going to happen in the last days. I'll give you an example of what I mean. In 1838, Joseph Smith received a revelation that tobacco and alcohol were bad for the human body, and that God doesn't want us to use these things. Practicing Latter-day Saints obey that health law and have consequently been proven to have longer life expectancies than the general population. Today medical science supports what Joseph Smith said God revealed to him -- 100% with respect to tobacco and to a large degree with respect to alcohol, but for many, many years this was not the case. Doctors were as likely to smoke as anybody else, and tobacco was promoted as actually being healthy for the body. Now how is such a revelation, even though it is not found in the Bible, not worth paying attention to?
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Katzpur said:
Of course we do. All of us do, but that's not what I was trying to get at. I was simply trying to understand why you would close your mind to the possibility that there was additional knowledge out there when there seems to me to be no good reason to do so. It just doesn't make sense to me that anyone would not want to gain as much knowledge about God as possible. To simply say "I know all I need to know" seems to me to be so self-limiting.

I can't speak for Dawny, and I think she is doing a fine job explaining her perspective on prophets and prophecy, but I agree that the Bible contains all we need for 'salvation' (and you are right Kat, what exactly is salvation is a huge topic in itself). Like Dawny I also believe that we have prophets among us. One thing I use to test the fruits, in my discernment, is whether the prophet's message is consistent with, rather than conflict with, the main messages of the Gosple. Those main messages being 1. Love each other as I love you and 2. Do not fear. The 'Do not fear' message is very important because all of these differences of opinion we have on doctrines or whatever do not really matter when we attend to first things first: caring for each other, holding each other gently, taking each other's burdens, loving each other. Do not fear, I am with you. When two or three gather in His name, there is love. Where there is love there is the Spirit. Where there is the spirit we do not fear. Love drives out fear.

2 c,
lunamoth
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
Dawny0826 writes: I believe that a true prophet would edify the church.
prophet >noun (fem. prophetess) 1 an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God
A true prophet would edify the qualities of GOD and the REALationship between humans past, present and future. In order to do this convincingly a knowledge of GOD before there were humans must be established. This information is very unclear and not abundant. Certain questions must be asked. What church was GOD establishing before the creation of humans? Why would GOD need to establish a church to interact with this creation? What was the church that was established before the coming of the Messiah.


Dawny0826 writes:If any man claimed something that wasn't remotely outlined for the end times of mankind in the book of Revelation...I couldn't believe it.
What would stop you from believing it? What is the difference between an unproven deceased primitive prophet compared to say- a modern day prophet with unproven inspirations?
 
Top