To Quote LDS Prophets....

[Javl]

Heavenly Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit, and Prophets and Apostles, they don’t need defending. They can defend themselves through their actions and words and deeds. You would think if Smith was a Prophet he would be like them, able to take care of himself or God would take care of him. Instead the LDS church has to keep changing history, falsifying history, hiding history; it’s really suspicious. It’s almost like they know it’s all one big scam but have to keep playing this game.

You can add not only J. Smith to the list along with C.T. Russell, M.B. Eddy, Dr. M. Bach, L.W. Rogers, E. Swedenborg, E.G. White, and a myriad of other false Prophets, but also B. Young and the rest of the “Prophets” of Mormonism. None of these so-called Prophets, all of whom claim to have been called and commissioned by God to replace His Church, can meet even one requirement of what it is to be a true Prophet of God.

It seems that just about every generation comes up with a new “Prophet” with the exact same claim from God to correct or replace His Church. It also seems that Satan is kept quite busy, and enjoying it, recruiting gullible and/or self serving people to keep Christianity in turmoil ( with well over 30,000 denominations and Autonomous Churches ).
But fear not, Jesus is still there protecting His sheep and Church from the wiles and snares of the devil, who no matter how hard he tries, will not and cannot win the battle.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Todd520]

Also from the Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)-

Not everyone, however, who speaks in a spirit is a prophet, unless he have the behavior of the Lord. By his behavior, then, the false prophet and the true prophet shall be known.

Lax, you seem to have ignored the question, so here it is AGAIN.

cite the Biblical verses that show that prophets are always speaking the word of God, and have foresight in everything, and therefore are not allowed to be human?

If there is no reference to whether a prophet is always speaking the ‘breathe of God’ then just admit it - that prophets are also human with human actions and foibles

Now, your post on how to flag a false prophet was interesting but not complete. Please expand using biblical reference on **‘by his behavior’ **What is the proper definition for 'the behavior of the Lord’

I’m not sure if this lack of behavior applies to know when a real prophet is not ‘mainlining the spirit’, or just to spot the completely bogus prophet.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Lax, you seem to have ignored the question, so here it is AGAIN.

 

[lax16]

Lax, you seem to have ignored the question, so here it is AGAIN.

If there is no reference to whether a prophet is always speaking the ‘breathe of God’ then just admit it - that prophets are also human with human actions and foibles

Now, your post on how to flag a false prophet was interesting but not complete. Please expand using biblical reference on **‘by his behavior’ **What is the proper definition for 'the behavior of the Lord’

I’m not sure if this lack of behavior applies to know when a real prophet is not ‘mainlining the spirit’, or just to spot the completely bogus prophet.

Todd - I did not ignore the question at all. I provided many biblical references to what constitutes a prophet/false prophet. I cannot add to that for I am not God.

If God did not say whether a prophet is always speaking the ‘breathe of God’ (whatever that is) then He did not spell it out. Read for yourself the many scriptural references on prophets/false prophets, don’t rely on me to convince you.

Joseph Smith has been discredited by the Old and New Testament as a false prophet. I think God knows what the criteria should be and for you to try and make this my opinion is ridiculous.

I quoted from the Didache - they are not my words. What do you think the apostles meant by:
Not everyone, however, who speaks in a spirit is a prophet, unless he have the behavior of the Lord. By his behavior, then, the false prophet and the true prophet shall be known.

What is ‘mainlining the spirit’?

You can tell me how JS was like the prophets of the Old Testament any time you’d like.

 

[lax16]

Really?

That’s strange.

I was baptised a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1965. I have never been told “Don’t inquire.” Never.

I have never read “Don’t inquire” in any Church publication or periodical. Never.

I have never heard “Don’t inquire” from any pulpit in any branch, ward or stake where I have lived or visited. I have never heard it from the pulpit of General Conference. I have never heard it in any of the thousands of classroom discussions I have participated in. Never.

But I have constantly heard, from all of those sources, continuous encouragement to continue to learn and grow in knowledge, to expand my horizons and study as much as I can, both from the Scriptures and “out of the best books.” Constantly.

So Stormy, this is a call for references: can you support your characterisation of the Church of Jesus Christ from any LDS sources? This seems like a reasonable request to me, that an LDS position should be supportable from LDS sources.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran - I know **for a fact **that you are not allowed to read certain books by certain authors. I live in Utah and hear members talking about it.
I am not sure how the word gets out, but it does.

 

[PaulDupre]

What is the proper definition for 'the behavior of the Lord’

Let’s examine what it is not.

It is not having sex with your house maid (Fanny Alger) and, when caught in the act, saying that God told you to do it.

It is not marrying teenaged girls and lying to your wife about it.

It is not demanding that your followers give you their wives as sex partners. And lying about it.

It is not marrying a woman and her daughter in direct violation of the Law of Moses (Lev 18:17). And lying about it.

It is not marrying a girl and her sister in direct violation of the Law of Moses (Lev 18:18). And lying about it.

It is not sending men on foreign missions, then marrying and sleeping with their wives while they are gone. And lying about it.

It is not promising salvation to entire families on condition that those families give you their young daughters as plural wives.

It is not marrying more than 30 women, all the while declaring publically that you did not, and publically condemning such behavior (aka lying and hypocrisy) and having these denials as part of your canonized scripture (1835 version D&C 101, quietly removed when D&C 132 was added). Take careful note of who signed the denial wriiten by Joseph Smith. Nearly all of the men were polygamists at the time, nearly all of the women had polygamous husbands, including Emma Smith. More lies.

It is not, when the truth about your adulterous behavior is finally published in a newspaper (the Nauvoo Expositor), to order the printing press destroyed and the office burned to the ground.

 

[Pahoran]

Pahoran - I know **for a fact **that you are not allowed to read certain books by certain authors. I live in Utah and hear members talking about it.
I am not sure how the word gets out, but it does.

So when you say you “know for a fact” you actually mean hearsay; is that it?

I am a lifelong Latter-day Saint. I know for a fact that there is no such restriction.

Never has been.

Unless you’re talking about something like porn, which is certainly frowned upon.

But I get the impression you’re not talking about that, are you?

There is no list of proscribed books or proscribed authors. That is the material fact.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[RebeccaJ]

Pahoran - I know **for a fact **that you are not allowed to read certain books by certain authors. I live in Utah and hear members talking about it.
I am not sure how the word gets out, but it does.

**Richard Paul Evans banned from Deseret Book

**SALT LAKE CITY (AP) – Richard Paul Evans, author of “The Christmas Box,” has a new book on the shelves Book.

The chain of bookstores, owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has decided not to stock copies of the best-selling author’s latest book, “The Last
Promise,” because it doesn’t meet the church’s new standards for “moral content.”

 

[lax16]

So when you say you “know for a fact” you actually mean hearsay; is that it?

I am a lifelong Latter-day Saint. I know for a fact that there is no such restriction.

Never has been.

Unless you’re talking about something like porn, which is certainly frowned upon.

But I get the impression you’re not talking about that, are you?

There is no list of proscribed books or proscribed authors. That is the material fact.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran - About 15 years ago I worked for an LDS man. I considered him a friend (and still do) and enjoyed talking with him about raising a family etc.
A friend of mine at the time, who attended a Nazarene church, gave me a book to read when he heard I was working for a Mormon.
The book was called The Godmakers. I asked my boss about it and he looked at me sternly and said “If you continue to read it I will have to fire you.”
He then involved another LDS friend who came to my home and insisted that I get rid of the book. He wanted to take it but I refused since it belonged to someone else.
So…that is not hearsay…it is not porn…and I never brought it up to my boss again.

I never said that there was a list. I said somehow word gets around.