LDS claim about J. Smith

[IanS]

amgid:

The expression “the law and the prophets” is an idiomatic expression used by the Jews essentially to refer to the “Law of Moses”, meaning the Old Covenant (the Mosaic Law) under which the Jews lived until the coming of Christ. When the Lord told the Jews that “the law and the prophets” were until John, it means that John the Baptist was the last prophet that came under that old covenant. Jesus did away with the old covenant and instituted a new law and a new covenant, and everything after that operates under that new law and covenant. It does not mean that the prophetic office itself was done away.

But as others have pointed out, there are plenty of prophets in the NT after Christ.

But consider the following:

1 Corinthians 12:

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Ephesians 2:

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
amgid

I believe I already refuted everything you listed above. This in no way indicates that there are some kind of new prophets of the New Covenant or prophets that were born after John the Baptist. Once again, big assumptions being made here.

Also, if there were prophets of the New Covenant, what sort of prophecies were they making?

 

[IanS]

amgid:

Jesus did away with the old covenant and instituted a new law and a new covenant, and everything after that operates under that new law and covenant. It does not mean that the prophetic office itself was done away.

I’m trying to find in the Bible where it indicates that the prophetic office would continue after everything was finalized with Jesus in the New Covenant. I’m looking for anything direct or implicit, New Testament or Old Testament, even Sacred Tradition.

I would be willing to discern any evidence that the prophetic office continued after Jesus, but I just don’t see it. :nope:

 

[amgid]

IanS:

I’m trying to find in the Bible where it indicates that the prophetic office would continue after everything was finalized with Jesus in the New Covenant. I’m looking for anything direct or implicit, New Testament or Old Testament, even Sacred Tradition.

I would be willing to discern any evidence that the prophetic office continued after Jesus, but I just don’t see it. :nope:

Than you for both your posts. I will see what I can research for you and get back to you later on.

amgid

 

[IanS]

mormon fool:

An intriguing thought! I would be sad to see two prophets who had been assumed into heaven be killed and left on the streets. I am curious to what your references are to most scholars? It seems like a speculative leap to actually identify them.

–fool

Actually, there are some very early apocryphal writings that state exactly that (well maybe not the “left in the street thing”). If you would like I can give some refrences.

 

[mormon_fool]

IanS:

I’m afraid I just don’t agree with the Mormon feeling about living prophets. I don’t mean to get in a scripture slinging contest with you,

IanS,

I share your concerns about getting into a “scripture slinging” contest because that is not my intent. The only thing that can really be established is that times back then were different than they are now, regardless of which of our church’s claims have more validity. I think you hit on a key point about raising the question of whether the office of prophet was meant to continue after the New Testament. I think the CCC already concedes that point, albeit re-envisioning participation in the “prophetic office” as an evangelical activity and not a mirror match of the Old Testament concept of a prophet that aids in revealing new or re-revealing old truths.

**

but your view is not in accord with what is stated in 1 Corinthians, which clearly states that God appointed the Apostles to be first in the church and above all others:

** 1 Cor. 12:28 ** And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.**

You might wish to see my post to Brad, the # 1 catholic apologist dealing with mormon topics according to Google. I show that LDS use the term prophet in a variety of different ways. For us apostles are prophets, hence having apostolic prophets be appointed into a higher position than non-apostolic prophets makes complete sense to us, while having prophets lose an appointed place in the church organization is viewed as a departure the NT doesn’t explicitly anticipate.

Acts - In every case you mention above it merely states that prophets were alive at the same time as the apostles. I don’t doubt that for one second. It’s not like every prophet in the world dropped dead after John made his prophesy about the coming of a messiah. Remember, both John and Jesus died quite young.

If I understand your argument the NT prophets had to have been prophets before Christ and were merely allowed to hold their calling out of courtesy to ease the transition. However I think it means something that Jesus embraced the title of prophet, warned about false prophets in the last days (no need to give detailed tests of prophets if there weren’t going to be any real ones), compared the persecutions of former prophets to the ones that the apostle/prophets he had called would experience, and the NT apostles most certainly took over the mantle of the OT prophets as chief spokesman for God and revealers of new truth.

Also, it in no way indicates that these prophets were making prophecies about anything. You’re making some pretty big assumptions here.

Actually if you will allow that apostle were prophets themselves (think back on the Cor. scripture – they were also teachers and miracle workers, etc.) then we do indeed see new revelation being disseminated (ex: the Book of Revelation) . We see the same from non-apostolic pophets. One of them predicts to Paul that if he went to Rome he would be killed. On the day of Pentecost, Peter saw in it a fulfillment of the Joel scripture cited earlier. Prophets can also be prophets without prophesing, that is just one of their many roles and prophesying is just one of the many manifestations of spiritual gifts.

Eph and James: The wording in scripture seems to indicate very well that these prophets came before Christ and in no way state that the came after. Again, you’re making some pretty big assumptions here.

I see no hints on how they came before Christ. James indicates the prophets are his brethren. We know that James and his brethren did not convert to the Christ’s gospel until well after Christ’s ministry commenced.

So were prophets meant to continue? I think that this question can not be answered with an appeal to the Bible alone. A sufficient evidence that revelation and prophets were meant to cease would need the last revelation recorded to explicitly state such. Otherwise it violates a time-honored pattern and would make me feel less special than the glory days of the Bible. It would seem that God was playing favorites with the ancient peoples, blessing them with prophets, but not us. I prefer to view God as an interactive Father providing continual feedback in contrast to making us guess or arrive at his thoughts on current issues entirely based on the past record. Since a proclamation declaring the end of prophets as being essential to the church organization fails to exist, it must very much remain an open question.

–fool

 

[Brad_Haas]

mormon fool:

You might wish to see my post to Brad, the #1 catholic apologist dealing with mormon topics according to Google.

Fortunately for the world, Google is mistaken.

What search string gives that result, anyhoo?

 

[Brad_Haas]

There’s no problem calling people prophets in the Catholic Church. We are all prophets (and priests and kings) because we’re united with Christ. However, one’s understanding of the word “prophet” may cause confusion. As far as I’m concerned, a prophet is one who speaks for God. Therefore evangelization and teaching are prophetic activities. But that only corresponds to your last defined meaning of “prophet.”

To us, if you want to associate it with priesthood and authority, then the bishops (and the pope above all) are the ones who possess the prophetic office, as the successors of the apostles. That would be closer to the first two definitions you listed.

 

[mormon_fool]

chb03c:

Thank you everyone for there opinions and responses. And Mormon fool thank you for participating in this forum and giving us your (name removed by moderator)ut.

You’re welcome

Just so we can swing a little bit more into the topic of the thread. Since the Mormon Church says that a prophet does not have to be 100% correct all the time does this not exclude there prophecy.

Please be careful about what you attribute to the Mormon Church. If you wish to do this, please reference some authoritative statement on the topic. The positions I have taken on this thread reflect my opinions after carefully studying the issue but are not necessarily those of the LDS Church. I will respond since what you say accurately reflects my position.

I think that there is an understanding that if the prophet makes a serious error, God will intervene and fix the problem as Deut. 18 suggests. It isn’t the average mormon’s job “to steady the ark.” I also believe that if the Bible and other LDS scriptures have mistakes in them, these can be compensated for through my personal access to the Holy Spirit. I read the scriptures charitably, I usually ask myself in what sense passages are true and applicable to myself, rather than looking to prove them false. I don’t think this is substantially any different then how most Christians read their scriptures. I don’t normally look at scriptures as being in error as long as there is a plausible reason not to do so.

As they say: The LDS prophet is not inerrant, but in practice nobody believes this.

Also according to this statement by the Mormon church just about anyone could be a prophet don’t you think that is a little dangerous for someone’s faith? I mean techniqually anyone could walk into a church and claim that they are a prophet from God and you must do A, B and C.

This really isn’t the case given the hierarchial structure of the LDS church. Only the President of the LDS church is authorized to announce new revelation for the entire church. Everyone else is entitled to personal revelation, including the right to receive a confirmation that the current prophet’s course is approved by God.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Fortunately for the world, Google is mistaken.

What search string gives that result, anyhoo?

I based that on one of your blog entries. It appears I was mistaken as to which searching services have you #1 (MSN and Yahoo). Google only has you at #2 for “Catholic Mormon apologetics”. In any case, I think it is a worthy goal to shoot for and I wish you well!

Good points in your last post. I agree with you that the most basic concept of a prophet is one who speaks for God.

later,
fool

 

[Brad_Haas]

Ah. Well, maybe someday I’ll nail Google too, but I’d like the site to become a lot more substantial first.

 

[CreosMary]

Dear Friends,
Just to add to the mayhem, many many years ago as a 13 year old I spent a year with and baptised by the mormons. I was taught that;
-The Catholic Church is the devil’s church
-If you are dark skinned then you cannot hold offices in the LDS
-If I masturbated, I would go to hell, no chance of repentance or forgiveness, pretty tough for a 13 year old boy
-The most amusing was when I questioned the local ‘President’ about the 10% tithing and where does the money go?, there being no mormon charities. I was told that there is a big mountain in Utah that has a cave built into it that is industructible even if you dropped an A bomb outside it, and all the money was kept in there!
I asked what the money was for and was told that "when Jesus comes to build his Kingdom of Heaven on earth, he will have the money to do it with!
Now even for a naive 13 year old this was too much, I left them and home, spent a life on drugs until finally I was loved into baptism in the Holy Roman Catholic Church by the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa’s sisters) Finally I realised I was HOME.
Thanks be to God!

 

[IanS]

CreosMary:

Dear Friends,
Just to add to the mayhem, many many years ago as a 13 year old I spent a year with and baptised by the mormons. I was taught that;
-The Catholic Church is the devil’s church
-If you are dark skinned then you cannot hold offices in the LDS
-If I masturbated, I would go to hell, no chance of repentance or forgiveness, pretty tough for a 13 year old boy
-The most amusing was when I questioned the local ‘President’ about the 10% tithing and where does the money go?, there being no mormon charities. I was told that there is a big mountain in Utah that has a cave built into it that is industructible even if you dropped an A bomb outside it, and all the money was kept in there!
I asked what the money was for and was told that "when Jesus comes to build his Kingdom of Heaven on earth, he will have the money to do it with!
Now even for a naive 13 year old this was too much, I left them and home, spent a life on drugs until finally I was loved into baptism in the Holy Roman Catholic Church by the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa’s sisters) Finally I realised I was HOME.
Thanks be to God!

Wecome Home! Sounds like you had quite a journey getting here.

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that when our Lord does return in glory, a mountain of money is going to be the last thing on His or anyone elses mind. Hope that mountain is FDIC insured.

Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth, or a pile of cold hard cash?

 

[IanS]

mormon fool:

IanS,

I share your concerns about getting into a “scripture slinging” contest because that is not my intent. The only thing that can really be established is that times back then were different than they are now, regardless of which of our church’s claims have more validity. I think you hit on a key point about raising the question of whether the office of prophet was meant to continue after the New Testament. I think the CCC already concedes that point, albeit re-envisioning participation in the “prophetic office” as an evangelical activity and not a mirror match of the Old Testament concept of a prophet that aids in revealing new or re-revealing old truths.

I’m glad to see you step in and rescue your buddy amgid. You’d make a good firefighter.

What paragraph numbers in the CCC discuss this topic? I tried doing a Google search but came up empty. Maybe I need to defect to Yahoo. However, what you say makes scene, that no new truths or old truths are revealed after the covenant Jesus made through His blood.

Unless of course, you believe that God started yet another covenant with Joe Smith after Jesus. But surely you wouldn’t believe that, because that would place him at the same lever or higher than Jesus Christ Himself. :bigyikes:
mormon fool:

You might wish to see my post to Brad, the # 1 catholic apologist dealing with mormon topics according to Google. I show that LDS use the term prophet in a variety of different ways. For us apostles are prophets, hence having apostolic prophets be appointed into a higher position than non-apostolic prophets makes complete sense to us, while having prophets lose an appointed place in the church organization is viewed as a departure the NT doesn’t explicitly anticipate.

You say “For us”. By whose authority can you make this claim? The Catholic Church states the following:

Paul now applies the image again to the church as a whole and its members (1 Cor 12:27). The lists in 1 Cor 12:28-30 spell out the parallelism by specifying the diversity of functions found in the church (cf Romans 12:6-8; Eph 4:11).

6 [28] First, apostles: apostleship was not mentioned in 1 Cor 12:8-10, nor is it at issue in these chapters, but Paul gives it pride of place in his listing. It is not just one gift among others but a prior and fuller gift that includes the others. They are all demonstrated in Paul’s apostolate, but he may have developed his theology of charisms by reflecting first of all on his own grace of apostleship (cf 1 Cor 3:5-4:14; 9:1-27; 2 Cor 2:14-6:13; 10:1-13:30, esp. 1 Cor 11:23 and 12:12).

This is stated by the authority of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

 

[IanS]

mormon fool:

If I understand your argument the NT prophets had to have been prophets before Christ and were merely allowed to hold their calling out of courtesy to ease the transition. However I think it means something that Jesus embraced the title of prophet, warned about false prophets in the last days (no need to give detailed tests of prophets if there weren’t going to be any real ones), compared the persecutions of former prophets to the ones that the apostle/prophets he had called would experience, and the NT apostles most certainly took over the mantle of the OT prophets as chief spokesman for God and revealers of new truth…

Again you state “I think”, I don’t. Just because you personally think something does not make it the truth.

Of course your are still going to have people who call themselves prophets. It’s not like God is going to hit the mute button every time someone tries to say that word. That’s why Jesus warned of false prophets. Perhaps I think Jesus was warning about Joe Smith. Does that mean I’m right?
mormon fool:

Actually if you will allow that apostle were prophets themselves (think back on the Cor. scripture – they were also teachers and miracle workers, etc.) then we do indeed see new revelation being disseminated (ex: the Book of Revelation) . We see the same from non-apostolic pophets. One of them predicts to Paul that if he went to Rome he would be killed. On the day of Pentecost, Peter saw in it a fulfillment of the Joel scripture cited earlier. Prophets can also be prophets without prophesing, that is just one of their many roles and prophesying is just one of the many manifestations of spiritual gifts…

I think I covered this above. Paul was talking about different roles in the Catholic Church. And again, all these people were alive before Jesus’s ministry. That’s a historical fact.
mormon fool:

I see no hints on how they came before Christ. James indicates the prophets are his brethren. We know that James and his brethren did not convert to the Christ’s gospel until well after Christ’s ministry commenced.

So were prophets meant to continue? I think that this question can not be answered with an appeal to the Bible alone. A sufficient evidence that revelation and prophets were meant to cease would need the last revelation recorded to explicitly state such. Otherwise it violates a time-honored pattern and would make me feel less special than the glory days of the Bible. It would seem that God was playing favorites with the ancient peoples, blessing them with prophets, but not us. I prefer to view God as an interactive Father providing continual feedback in contrast to making us guess or arrive at his thoughts on current issues entirely based on the past record. Since a proclamation declaring the end of prophets as being essential to the church organization fails to exist, it must very much remain an open question.

–fool

There’s something you need to know about me. I was raised by atheists to be an atheist. Before I came to the Catholic Church I had to convert my mind using facts and logic from the following sources:

Sacred Scripture
Sacred Traditions
Early Church Fathers

Then I converted my heart and soul.

I hold these sources in the high-test authority, because these come from many of the people who spoke to Jesus and the apostles themselves. Do I think God gave them some kind of special privileges over us? That’s laughable. God imposed huge burdens on these people, which they accepted for the sake of the Kingdom. I’m sure they were feeling real guilty about how much God favored them when they were being tortured to death.

Thank you for making me continue to dig deeper into my faith. Every time I do, I come out that much more resolved that I truely a part of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

However, I feel you and me have got to the point where we are just going to go round and round with each other.

 

[Chele]

CreosMary:

Dear Friends,
Just to add to the mayhem, many many years ago as a 13 year old I spent a year with and baptised by the mormons. I was taught that;
-The Catholic Church is the devil’s church
-If you are dark skinned then you cannot hold offices in the LDS
-If I masturbated, I would go to hell, no chance of repentance or forgiveness, pretty tough for a 13 year old boy
-The most amusing was when I questioned the local ‘President’ about the 10% tithing and where does the money go?, there being no mormon charities. I was told that there is a big mountain in Utah that has a cave built into it that is industructible even if you dropped an A bomb outside it, and all the money was kept in there!
I asked what the money was for and was told that "when Jesus comes to build his Kingdom of Heaven on earth, he will have the money to do it with!
Now even for a naive 13 year old this was too much, I left them and home, spent a life on drugs until finally I was loved into baptism in the Holy Roman Catholic Church by the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa’s sisters) Finally I realised I was HOME.
Thanks be to God!

Well that was quite a Journey back to Catholisism, but you were missinformed on much of that (especially the part about there being no Mormon Charities, do some research and you will find that the Mormon Church is one of the fastest groups when it comes to disaster releif. Just last year welfare square in Salt Lake City was put into use by making food for starving countries in Africa. Tithing of course is used to keep the Church functioning we build many buildings a day in the world.).
I would actually invite you to disprove the information you have on our church by researching a little on our own church Doctrine before you say that all of that is truth.

 

[amgid]

IanS:

I’m trying to find in the Bible where it indicates that the prophetic office would continue after everything was finalized with Jesus in the New Covenant. I’m looking for anything direct or implicit, New Testament or Old Testament, even Sacred Tradition.

I would be willing to discern any evidence that the prophetic office continued after Jesus, but I just don’t see it.

As I promised, I did a bit of research into the scriptures for you, and here are the results:

After Jesus had risen from the dead, and before He ascended to heaven, He commanded His disciples to remain in Jerusalem until the Holy Ghost which He had promised them should be given to them. The reception of the Holy Ghost, which took place on the day of Pentecost, marks the most important event in the history of the Christian Church after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After they had received the Holy Ghost, the first thing that they began to do was to speak in tongues and to prophesy. Then as many were astonished at this event, Peter stood up and made this announcement:

Acts 2:

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days {i.e. in the days that Peter was speaking, after the resurrection and ascension of Christ}, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
So the very first thing that the disciples of Christ began to do after receiving the Holy Ghost, which in fact marks the beginning of the Church, was to prophesy. Hence the gift of prophecy is one of those special gifts of the Spirit, which Paul teaches was meant to continue in the Church:

1 Corinthians 12:

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

---

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
This evidently teaches that the gift of prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit that, along with all the other gifts of the Spirit, were meant to continue in the church. You can’t arbitrarily keep some of the gifts of the Spirit, and remove others. You either accept all of them, or you don’t accept them at all. Then he continues in the same chapter to add:

1 Corinthians 12:

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
This tells us that the office of prophet, along those of teacher, Apostle and working of miracles, were meant to continue in the church. In fact, Paul considers the gift of Prophecy to be the best and most useful of the gifts of the spirit:

1 Corinthians 14:

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

---

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Hence Paul also writes to the Romans:

Romans 12:

6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

Thus prophesy remains an integral part of the ministry of the church, just as teaching or other activity is. In the following verses Paul continues to affirm prophesy as being an essential part of the ministry of the church:

1 Corinthians 14:

31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

---

39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

1 Thessalonians 5:

20 Despise not prophesyings.

1 Timothy 4:

14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise therefore to find that there were indeed prophets (and prophetesses) in the NT who prophesied:

Acts 19:

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Acts 21:

9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judæa a certain prophet, named Agabus. . . .
The Book of the Revelation of John is itself described as a book of prophecy:

Revelation 1:

3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Revelation 22:

7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
And the Apostle John himself is promised that he will yet preach and prophesy to many nations:

Revelation 10:

11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.
And even the testimony of Jesus is described as the spirit of prophecy:

Revelation 19:

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
These passages makes it pretty indisputable I think that the prophetic office was meant to continue in the church after Christ.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

I have gone back and reread your earlier posts, and you appear to be somewhat confused in your mind both as to what the LDS Church teaches, or what it is that you are actually asking or objecting to. Here is a quote from your earlier post #16:

I’m afraid I just don’t agree with the Mormon feeling about living prophets. I don’t mean to get in a scripture slinging contest with you, but your view is not in accord with what is stated in 1 Corinthians, which clearly states that God appointed the Apostles to be first in the church and above all others:

1 Cor. 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

I am puzzled as to what it is that you are saying here. If you are saying that Apostles are more important than prophets, I agree with you. The early Apostles were also prophets. In the LDS Church today, we have Apostles as in ancient times, who are also prophets. But the office of Apostle is more important than that of prophet, today as it was then.

If, however, you are saying that prophets are not required at all, then I fail to see how you come to that conclusion. Even the scripture which you have quoted clearly states that there must be prophets—even though they come second in importance only to Apostles. So I am confused as to what it is that you are actually saying or objecting to. Are you saying that Apostles are more important than prophets, or are you saying that there shouldn’t be prophets at all?

Here are some more quotes from you which I find puzzling. The following are from post #9:

Based on what you’ve said, am I to understand that the revelations of Joseph Smith are above that of the Apostles who walked and talked with Jesus himself?

There is nothing “above” or “below” about the revelations of God to His prophets and Apostles. Are the revelations of God to Jeremiah above or below that given to Isaiah? The answer is neither; that don’t make sense. Are the revelations of God to John above or below that given to Paul or Peter? The answer is neither. Joseph Smith was ordained an Apostle by angelic ministration, and his revelations and calling was neither above or below theirs.

I am not aware of any prophets after John the Baptist in the Catholic Church. There have been many Saints, mystics, and visionaries, but I am not aware of anyone who has claimed to be prophet.

Another puzzling comment. The fact that there are not, or have not been prophets in the Catholic Church, is neither here nor there. The truth is that they did exist in the primitive church, and all the signs are that they were meant to continue. If the Catholic Church doesn’t have them, that is a question for you to answer. I am not a Catholic. That is precisely why I am not a Catholic! The line of reasoning you are adopting is a bit like Lord Nelson putting his telescope to his blind eye and saying, “I can’t see anything!”

The following quote is from post #17:

Acts - In every case you mention above it merely states that prophets were alive at the same time as the apostles. . . .

The reason for that is obvious enough. They wrote about their own time, so they mentioned prophets that were alive in their time. That is hardly a valid argument for saying that there shouldn’t be prophets after their own time. All the scriptural passages quoted above suggest that prophets were meant to continue after their own time. I hope these have answered your questions.

amgid

 

[amgid]

CreosMary:

Dear Friends,
Just to add to the mayhem, many many years ago as a 13 year old I spent a year with and baptised by the mormons. I was taught that;
-The Catholic Church is the devil’s church
-If you are dark skinned then you cannot hold offices in the LDS
-If I masturbated, I would go to hell, no chance of repentance or forgiveness, pretty tough for a 13 year old boy
-The most amusing was when I questioned the local ‘President’ about the 10% tithing and where does the money go?, there being no mormon charities. I was told that there is a big mountain in Utah that has a cave built into it that is industructible even if you dropped an A bomb outside it, and all the money was kept in there!
I asked what the money was for and was told that "when Jesus comes to build his Kingdom of Heaven on earth, he will have the money to do it with!
Now even for a naive 13 year old this was too much, I left them and home, spent a life on drugs until finally I was loved into baptism in the Holy Roman Catholic Church by the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa’s sisters) Finally I realised I was HOME.
Thanks be to God!

Don’t mean to be facetious, but it sounds like you were already on drugs when you were in the Mormon Church.

amgid

 

[amgid]

IanS:

I’m glad to see you step in and rescue your buddy amgid. You’d make a good firefighter

Not so fast if I were you!

amgid