How important are the prophets of the Lord?

[Cow Poke]

Well, it is true that Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith were prophets (though Cannon and Hyde were not so what they write is their opinion only.)

And your colleagues seem to be throwing Brigham under the bus every chance they get.

As I said I have not seen those particular quotes, and that is not what we teach today but it could very well be in effect a matter of semantics. As I wrote, the fulness of the gospel is to accept the Book of Mormon which if you accept it then by definition Joseph Smith would have to be a prophet since he translated it.

Well, that's what kind of concerns me -- it seems your Church's teachings have "drifted" somewhat on some pretty important issues -- like the Trinity.

Supposing you are a faithful member of another church but refuse to accept the Book of Mormon (or Joseph Smith, etc.) Then you cannot have an increase and therefore according to LDS doctrine you could not be in the celestial kingdom. But then why would you be upset at being denied entry into something you don't believe exists anyway? The classic view of Heaven is reflected in the two lower kingdoms, not the Celestial. Of course 'hell' is Outer Darkness but that's another discussion entirely.

Well, I'm going to the REAL Heaven, so I guess it doesn't matter!

(I'm kidding with you, RW -- you seem to be a right fine feller)

[Cow Poke]

Exaltation is what we call it.

Yeah, that --- we like to exalt the Lord.

[Xru]

Ten pages of text in 4 days . . . just a question . . . can anyone say that their appreciation of other peoples positions have changed, or has their positions changed with regards to their own beliefs . . . 'cause, and this varies with each poster, but from what i see there is very little if any movement in anyone's position. .. . just long pages of trading quotes and rejecting each others interpretations or countering quotes that seem to firm up and fix any one posters position in general anyway.

What about myself . . . one might ask . . . well I started out learning about LDS and had a rather open mind which may have freaked out some of my Christians friends. Now I'm in the rather uncomfortable position of seeing the main LDS Church as a faith based on the teachings of a fake and a criminal. I don't like that either . . . but facts are facts.

I've also learned something of the RCC in the mean time . . . things which I don't like and make me uncomfortable.

I've read thousands and thousands of words and the results is that I feel that their is something very wrong happening around or in TWeb . . . not that Tweb isn't constructive . . . but that some really strange things dynamics between individuals or something is happening . . .

It's hard to put into words . . .

[Sparko]

This teaching has not been mentioned since 1988 as you noted, and even that was a Priesthood manual quoting a remark made to Church members, who understand the context of our doctrines, teachings, and beliefs better than non-LDS do. And that quote in that Priesthood manual came from a source earlier than 1988. Most of us are not accustomed to paying so much time researching long past quotes. We have a lot in the present to focus on. Anyway, the teaching makes sense to me, when viewed from an LDS understanding--for which it was intended.

So you don't pay attention to "old" teachings? Do they get false over time or something?

I guess that explains why you pretty much ignore the whole bible then. It's really, really old.

[Sparko]

We vote to sustain the prophet and general authorities once a year. If there are new revelations, or major declarations, or proclamations, we may be asked to sustain those items as well. But there is no hard fast rule for declarations and proclamations. If there is something that is to be canonized, we vote to sustain that decision to canonize it.

well then, obviously it was the LATTER that I was talking about then wasn't it? Why did you try to obfuscate that by claiming to only vote to sustain the Prophet in his office? The discussion was about you claiming that revelations from God to the prophet were not up for vote. And yet you just admitted they are.

Case closed.

[Cow Poke]

So you don't pay attention to "old" teachings? Do they get false over time or something?

I guess that explains why you pretty much ignore the whole bible then. It's really, really old.

Have you ever seen him respond to a post by Mossy?

[OtherCheek]

Ten pages of text in 4 days . . . just a question . . . can anyone say that their appreciation of other peoples positions have changed, or has their positions changed with regards to their own beliefs . . . 'cause, and this varies with each poster, but from what i see there is very little if any movement in anyone's position. .. . just long pages of trading quotes and rejecting each others interpretations or countering quotes that seem to firm up and fix any one posters position in general anyway.

X, you have been pretty good about studying the anti-Mormon perspective over the web. May I suggest to you that if you were to go to a Ford truck dealer hoping to get the "straight scoop" about Dodge trucks, you might be satisfied and comfortable with what he tells you and draw your conclusions about Dodge trucks, but you really haven't dealt very honestly with yourself.

[OtherCheek]

So you don't pay attention to "old" teachings? Do they get false over time or something?

I guess that explains why you pretty much ignore the whole bible then. It's really, really old.

No. But the most important prophet to a LDS person is the current living prophet. We are discouraged from getting our selves so mired in traditions and the past, but rather keep our sights focused on the living prophet and leadership.

[OtherCheek]

well then, obviously it was the LATTER that I was talking about then wasn't it? Why did you try to obfuscate that by claiming to only vote to sustain the Prophet in his office? The discussion was about you claiming that revelations from God to the prophet were not up for vote. And yet you just admitted they are.

Case closed.

oy vey

[Cow Poke]

oy vey

Do you make the appropriate facial expression when you type that?

[OtherCheek]

This puzzles me: I have not yet found a definition of "translator", in paper dictionary or online, that says translator = prophet.

The notion that I am prophesying when I answer questions - ie translate - during my Welsh class is silly. As is the notion that the translators of the KJV etc etc etc were (or, in the case of recent translations, still are) prophets.

David
Added: On reflection, I guess you must be saying that a person who brings forth a holy book must be a prophet - as with the Prophet Mohammed. But if Joseph Smith's role was mere translator of words already written, that is not prophecy.

David

Oxford-English Dictionary:

translator

Pronunciation: /transˈleɪtə, trɑːns-, -nz-/
noun

1a person who translates from one language into another, especially as a profession: the translator of Hardy’s poems into Icelandic
a computer program that translates from one programming language into another.

2a television relay transmitter.

A secular definition of a prophet might be anyone who "claims" to have contact with, and speak for God. Joseph Smith certainly made that claim. But for the LDS, we don't simply view Joseph as a prophet because he brought forth the BoM. Nor do we believe he was a prophet simply because he "claimed" to be one. LDS have a "Testimony" from the Holy Ghost that he was the Lord's prophet of the Restoration. We view him as a prophet because of the mantle that we believe God called upon him to carry.

[OtherCheek]

Do you make the appropriate facial expression when you type that?

Can someone create an oy vey emoticon for me?

[Cow Poke]

Can someone create an oy vey emoticon for me?

It would be somewhat akin to , no?

[OtherCheek]

It would be somewhat akin to , no?

That's discrimination.

[Cow Poke]

That's discrimination.

Sowwy.