Mormon Prophets & Revelations

  • Thread starter Thread starter kimg901
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ll be here all week!

BY said his sermons are doctrine. BY said in a sermon that Adam is God. So then Adam is God…except Pratt says Adam is NOT God…so it is NOT doctrine…but BY outranks Pratt…so it IS doctrine…but Pratt is later deemed to be wrong. So Adam, then MUST be God, except later Prophets said BY was wrong. So then His sermons are NOT doctrine. Then he must not have been a prophet…but no, he IS a prophet…so then his sermons MUST be doctrine…but Pratt says they are NOT doctrine…

But Pratt is wrong!..But BY is wrong…

so who was wrong first?

BY…

so then he was not a prophet?

Yes he was…

So then Pratt was wrong?

Yes…but for other reasons…

I need an aspirin
 
JS was a prophet. He saw and spoke to God.

So, if JS talks to God…he must know everything right? YES! In fact, he said

“If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.350-352).

In fact, JS was a god to his people!

•“God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be god to you in His stead…and if you don’t like it, you must lump it!” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.363).

So then, what JS says is true, right?

YES! because He is a prophet and more learned than the whole world put together…

"President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. . . . it was the will of God that they should be ordained to the ministry and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh - even fifty six years should wind up the scene. (History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 182).

So the world ended?

Nope…so JS was wrong?

Nope…he was not talking as a prophet…

But he prophesied!

No, it was just opinion…

But why would he need to opine if He talks to God and is the most learned man around?

Um…

But JS was right about other things…right?

Verily, thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto the world. (Doctrine & Covenants 114:1)

huh? David Patten died before Spring…

So it was a failed prophesy?

No.,it was an opinion…

But he said "thus saith the Lord!

He was kidding…

um…

I need another aspirin…
 
LivingWaters7 said:
Yes, this seems to be the typical LDS view on the matter. The confirmatory personal revelation from God is something emphasized in many aspects of Mormonism.

Also, I don’t think it is so much as “voting” to accept or reject a revelation given by a Mormon prophet, as it’s more of a “sustaining” of the revelation. When they raise their hands, it’s more of a “yes, I do believe that this is a prophet of the Lord, and I know that this revelation is from God”, instead of a votes being collected and that the revelation could be shot down due to dissenting votes.

Well, I believe it was Joseph Smith that said something like “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”. The problem I’ve seen is how to discern when the LDS prophet is indeed acting in this prophetic office, and when he’s merely a man giving his opinions. This causes much confusion as to what to accept and reject in various teachings given in the past.
Click to expand...
Has their ever been a case when a conference has refuse to sustain a “prophet’s revelation”?

Is this not just a formality?
 
TK ~

What is the Mormon belief or understanding regarding the prophet of Islam who claimed that he is the “seal of the prophets” and that no prophet(s) will come after him.

Has J. Smith questioned that or his any of his followers.

I read a while back that J. Smith claimed that he is the new “Mohammad” of his time.

Also, I was reading on the succession of the LDS prophets.

It seems that a man gets voted as president and is automatically labeled a prophet, a seer and one who receives revelations from God…!

What are their explanations regarding prophet hood that any ordinary man automatically becomes a prophet???.
 
Hello jakasaki,
People become apostles based on their business skills and/or their heredity. The senior apostle then becomes a prophet when the prophet dies. The present prophet appears to have some mental condition so I'm not sure how there working this out.
 
superwimp said:
Hello jakasaki,
Code: 
 People become apostles based on their business skills and/or their heredity.  The senior apostle then becomes a prophet when the prophet dies.  **The present prophet appears to have some mental condition** so I'm not sure how there working this out.
Click to expand...
Can you help me understand this comment? Does he have a diagnosed medical condition or are you speculating?
 
Boulder257 said:
Can you help me understand this comment? Does he have a diagnosed medical condition or are you speculating?
Click to expand...
It’s rumored he has Alzheimer’s Disease but LDS leadership hides the human frailty of its “prophets”, so it hasn’t been confirmed.
 
Oh NT, don’t you just get tired trying to defend the LDS Church? Isn’t it exhausting- and a little discouraging- when you have to denounce teachings that LDS prophets have endorsed?

There IS peace in having a Gospel where everything not only makes sense, but also where the teachings of 2000 years ago are just as relevant to the Church today as they were then.

No embarrassment.

No backpedaling.

Just truth, and the knowledge that “as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be”.

Praise God for His One Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church!
 
SpeSalvi said:
Oh NT, don’t you just get tired trying to defend the LDS Church? Isn’t it exhausting- and a little discouraging- when you have to denounce teachings that LDS prophets have endorsed?

There IS peace in having a Gospel where everything not only makes sense, but also where the teachings of 2000 years ago are just as relevant to the Church today as they were then.

No embarrassment.

No backpedaling.

Just truth, and the knowledge that “as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be”.

Praise God for His One Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church!
Click to expand...
lol…what is great fun for me is to get Mormons to defend their prophets by denouncing other prophets.

What is not fun is that they never get it…
 
TexanKnight said:
lol…what is great fun for me is to get Mormons to defend their prophets by denouncing other prophets.

What is not fun is that they never get it…
Click to expand...
Quick question? Do Mormons place their prophets above or equal to OT prophets?
 
Nicea325 said:
Quick question? Do Mormons place their prophets above or equal to OT prophets?
Click to expand...
Each prophet is considered to be in authority above the previous prophet. So when one prophet says, “let’s give women the priesthood” and then a latter prophet says, “women can no longer have the priesthood” the second prophet is followed and the first prophet becomes obsolete. Then a third prophet comes along and says, “priesthood to everything”. and so on and so on…
 
TheIrishman said:
Each prophet is considered to be in authority above the previous prophet. So when one prophet says, “let’s give women the priesthood” and then a latter prophet says, “women can no longer have the priesthood” the second prophet is followed and the first prophet becomes obsolete. Then a third prophet comes along and says, “priesthood to everything”. and so on and so on…
Click to expand...
there is no support for the notion of stepping-stone prophets
 
TheIrishman said:
Each prophet is considered to be in authority above the previous prophet. So when one prophet says, “let’s give women the priesthood” and then a latter prophet says, “women can no longer have the priesthood” the second prophet is followed and the first prophet becomes obsolete. Then a third prophet comes along and says, “priesthood to everything”. and so on and so on…
Click to expand...
:bigyikes:
 
andrewstx said:
Has their ever been a case when a conference has refuse to sustain a “prophet’s revelation”?

Is this not just a formality?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe there’s ever been a case where a revelation was refused to be sustained. In the vast majority of cases involving a sustaining, whether callings, revelations, etc, there is a unanimous vote. I’ve had a few friends that grew up LDS that told me about cases where someone raised their hand to not sustain someone in their calling, and the bishop said that he would speak with that individual to hear their reasoning (I’m assuming that if it’s a serious matter that they’re aware of that the bishop isn’t, this could affect whether or not that person is actually set apart in the calling). But again, that is extremely rare.

And again, I think that it’s important to realize that Mormons are not voting to approve or reject a revelation. What they are doing is “sustaining” that revelation, essentially raising their hand to show their agreement with it (presumably because they’ve received confirmatory revelation on it from God, so the thinking goes). It would be amusing if a revelation was received to allow the practice of plural marriage again, and half raise their hands to not sustain it. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top