The brethren will get the vaccine as soon as possible

[BeNotDeceived]

Did the church just announce that missionaries will be receiving the vaccine as well?

Yep.

In fact, as many vaccines as are available. If the missionary doesn’t want a certain vax, he can’t serve in an area that requires that vax. That will soon be the whole world for the covid hoax vax.

“We vaccinate our missionaries now for everything that is possible.”

Anyone here been vaccinated for Anthrax?

[Allison]

Who is the last president of the Church to have prophesied, in your opinion? What was/were the prophecy/prophecies?

"No prophet since Joseph Smith has really prophesied ..........
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=58836&p=1097558&hi ... h#p1097558

Was Nephi a prophet, in your opinion? I could be drawing a blank. Just trying to remember what prophecies he gave.

And, in order to qualify as a prophet, at what intervals do the prophecies need to be produced? Annually? Semi-annually? Only one per lifetime? Does one lose prophet status if too much time goes between prophecies? Who says so?

Nephi probably isn’t the only one. Will have to check them all against your requirement.

Are you serious?
Nephi made loads of prophecies.
Have you not read the Book of Mormon?

Yes, I have read it more times than I can count. And off the top of my head I can think of teachings, but not necessarily prophecies of the future. Lehi prophesied of the destruction of Jerusalem, and Nephi received a lot of revelation on various topics, such as supporting his father, what to do about Laban, how to build a ship, etc. But according to this conversation that is not enough. Is the interpretation of Lehi’s dream even a prophecy? They want prophecy, not mere revelation.

[nightlight]

"No prophet since Joseph Smith has really prophesied ..........
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=58836&p=1097558&hi ... h#p1097558

Was Nephi a prophet, in your opinion? I could be drawing a blank. Just trying to remember what prophecies he gave.

And, in order to qualify as a prophet, at what intervals do the prophecies need to be produced? Annually? Semi-annually? Only one per lifetime? Does one lose prophet status if too much time goes between prophecies? Who says so?

Nephi probably isn’t the only one. Will have to check them all against your requirement.

Are you serious?
Nephi made loads of prophecies.
Have you not read the Book of Mormon?

Yes, I have read it more times than I can count. And off the top of my head I can think of teachings, but not necessarily prophecies of the future. Lehi prophesied of the destruction of Jerusalem, and Nephi received a lot of revelation on various topics, such as supporting his father, what to do about Laban, how to build a ship, etc. But according to this conversation that is not enough. Is the interpretation of Lehi’s dream even a prophecy? They want prophecy, not mere revelation.

7 But behold, I proceed with mine own prophecy, according to my aplainness; in the which I bknow that no man can err; nevertheless, in the days that the prophecies of Isaiah shall be fulfilled men shall know of a surety, at the times when they shall come to pass.

8 Wherefore, they are of aworth unto the children of men, and he that supposeth that they are not, unto them will I speak particularly, and confine the words unto mine bown people; for I know that they shall be of great worth unto them in the clast days; for in that day shall they understand them; wherefore, for their good have I written them.

9 And as one generation hath been adestroyed among the Jews because of iniquity, even so have they been destroyed from generation to generation according to their iniquities; and never hath any of them been destroyed save it were bforetold them by the prophets of the Lord.

10 Wherefore, it hath been told them concerning the destruction which should come upon them, immediately after my father left aJerusalem; nevertheless, they bhardened their hearts; and according to my prophecy they have been destroyed, save it be those which are ccarried away dcaptive into Babylon.

11 And now this I speak because of the aspirit which is in me. And notwithstanding they have been carried away they shall return again, and possess the land of Jerusalem; wherefore, they shall be brestored again to the cland of their inheritance.

12 But, behold, they shall have awars, and rumors of wars; and when the day cometh that the bOnly Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father of heaven and of earth, shall cmanifest himself unto them in the flesh, behold, they will reject him, because of their iniquities, and the hardness of their hearts, and the stiffness of their necks.

13 Behold, they will acrucify him; and after he is laid in a bsepulchre for the space of cthree days he shall drise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have eseen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name.

14 And behold it shall come to pass that after the aMessiah hath risen from the dead, and hath manifested himself unto his people, unto as many as will believe on his name, behold, Jerusalem shall be bdestroyed again; for cwo unto them that fight against God and the people of his dchurch.

15 Wherefore, the aJews shall be bscattered among all nations; yea, and also cBabylon shall be destroyed; wherefore, the Jews shall be scattered by other nations.

16 And after they have been ascattered, and the Lord God hath scourged them by other nations for the space of many generations, yea, even down from generation to generation until they shall be persuaded to bbelieve in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind—and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and cclean hands, and look not forward any more for danother Messiah, then, at that time, the day will come that it must needs be expedient that they should believe these things.

17 And the Lord will set his hand again the second time to arestore his people from their lost and fallen state. Wherefore, he will proceed to do a bmarvelous work and a wonder among the children of men.

18 Wherefore, he shall bring forth ahis bwords unto them, which words shall cjudge them at the last day, for they shall be given them for the purpose of dconvincing them of the true Messiah, who was rejected by them; and unto the convincing of them that they need not look forward any more for a Messiah to come, for there should not any come, save it should be a efalse Messiah which should deceive the people; for there is save one fMessiah spoken of by the prophets, and that Messiah is he who should be rejected of the Jews.
___________

2 Nephi 27:1, 4–5
Book of Mormon

1 But, behold, in the last days, or in the days of the Gentiles—yea, behold all the nations of the Gentiles and also the Jews, both those who shall come upon this land and those who shall be upon other lands, yea, even upon all the lands of the earth, behold, they will be drunken with iniquity and all manner of abominations—

4 For behold, all ye that doeth iniquity, stay yourselves and wonder, for ye shall cry out, and cry; yea, ye shall be drunken but not with wine, ye shall stagger but not with strong drink.

5 For behold, the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep. For behold, ye have closed your eyes, and ye have rejected the prophets; and your rulers, and the seers hath he covered because of your iniquity.

____________

1 And it shall come to pass, that if the aGentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in bpower, in very deed, unto the ctaking away of their dstumbling blocks—

2 And harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father; yea, they shall be anumbered among the house of Israel; and they shall be a bblessed people upon the cpromised land forever; they shall be no more brought down into captivity; and the house of Israel shall no more be confounded.

3 And that great apit, which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell—yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that bhell which hath no end.

4 For behold, this is according to the acaptivity of the devil, and also according to the justice of God, upon all those who will work wickedness and abomination before him.

5 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, Nephi, saying: Thou hast beheld that if the Gentiles repent it shall be awell with them; and thou also knowest concerning the covenants of the Lord unto the house of Israel; and thou also hast heard that whoso brepenteth not must perish.

6 Therefore, awo be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God.

7 For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a amarvelous work among the children of men; a bwork which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto cpeace and dlife eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the ecaptivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.

8 And it came to pass that when the angel had spoken these words, he said unto me: Rememberest thou the acovenants of the Father unto the house of Israel? I said unto him, Yea.

9 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the adevil.

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save atwo churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the bother is the church of the cdevil; wherefore, dwhoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the ewhore of all the earth.

11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many awaters; and she had dominion over ball the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were afew, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon ball the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to afight against the Lamb of God.

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were aarmed with brighteousness and with the cpower of God in great glory.

15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was apoured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the bnations and kindreds of the earth.

16 And as there began to be awars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things—

17 And when the aday cometh that the bwrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the cwork of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his dcovenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.

18 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

19 And I looked and beheld a man, and he was dressed in a white robe.

20 And the angel said unto me: Behold aone of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

21 Behold, he shall asee and bwrite the cremainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been.

22 And he shall also write concerning the end of the world.

23 Wherefore, the things which he shall write are just and true; and behold they are written in the abook which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most bprecious and easy to the understanding of all men.

24 And behold, the things which this aapostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold, the remainder shalt thou see.

25 But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should awrite them.

[Allison]

Beautiful! I did think of that later, but still forgot that those chapters were pretty much ALL prophecy, duh!

Still the question remains (in my poor little brain) if all of the Book of Mormon prophets actually prophesied. I may be feeling dumb again here, but did Ammon prophesy? Enos? Mosiah and King Benjamin? I remember them sharing, teaching and exhorting, but off the top of my head cannot recollect if they all explicitly prophesied. Did Helaman? I just never thought to differentiate between preaching and prophesying, nor to discount someone as a prophet unless he was dispensing prophecy at some designated intervals. It’s going to make my current reading a little more interesting. Each BoM prophet will have or not have a prophecy check mark by his name. But either way I will still accept them as prophets.

[Silver Pie]

Beautiful! I did think of that later, but still forgot that those chapters were pretty much ALL prophecy, duh!

This is one thing I like about you. You're not defending this (Nephi prophesying) to the death. So many people would probably keep defending their position, and even attack the other(s) who brought up opposing scriptures.

[heliocentr1c]

Who is the last president of the Church to have prophesied, in your opinion? What was/were the prophecy/prophecies?

"No prophet since Joseph Smith has really prophesied ..........
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=58836&p=1097558&hi ... h#p1097558

Was Nephi a prophet, in your opinion? I could be drawing a blank. Just trying to remember what prophecies he gave.

And, in order to qualify as a prophet, at what intervals do the prophecies need to be produced? Annually? Semi-annually? Only one per lifetime? Does one lose prophet status if too much time goes between prophecies? Who says so?

Nephi probably isn’t the only one. Will have to check them all against your requirement.

Are you serious?
Nephi made loads of prophecies.
Have you not read the Book of Mormon?

Yeah, I have no idea what's going on right now. It's like common sense disappeared from the face of the earth.

So far, haven't seen a single example of anyone citing a prophecy from the current 15 or of anyone citing an actual example of the 15 clearly teaching the doctrine that members can or should be considered prophets- yet these same men are openly regarded as prophets and teachings which they have never bothered to mention are attributed to them through "extrapolation" and conjecture.

Nephi:

• prophesied (along w/ his father the destruction of Jerusalem for one, which occurs about 10 pages into the BoM- don't exactly have to read very far),

• received revelations,

• was shown visions (including seeing the end of the world; when he wrote about these visions of the future from the past, this is pretty clearly a form a prophecy),

• entertained angels,

• spoke with the Lord,

• produced actual, verifiable scripture (not some recycled write-up in a magazine which is but isn't "scripture"),

• demonstrated the power of God to his brothers to such a degree, they literally tried to bow down and worship him,

• comprehensively interpreted Isaiah (something the current 15 won't even touch),

• calmed a giant sea-storm through the power of prayer/faith-

but people are still questioning whether was a "prophet".....

[Allison]

"No prophet since Joseph Smith has really prophesied ..........
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=58836&p=1097558&hi ... h#p1097558

Was Nephi a prophet, in your opinion? I could be drawing a blank. Just trying to remember what prophecies he gave.

And, in order to qualify as a prophet, at what intervals do the prophecies need to be produced? Annually? Semi-annually? Only one per lifetime? Does one lose prophet status if too much time goes between prophecies? Who says so?

Nephi probably isn’t the only one. Will have to check them all against your requirement.

Are you serious?
Nephi made loads of prophecies.
Have you not read the Book of Mormon?

Yeah, I have no idea what's going on right now. It's like common sense disappeared from the face of the earth.

So far, haven't seen a single example of anyone citing a prophecy from the current 15 or of anyone citing an actual example of the 15 clearly teaching the doctrine that members can or should be considered prophets- yet these same men are openly regarded as prophets and teachings which they have never bothered to mention are attributed to them through "extrapolation" and conjecture.

Nephi:

• prophesied (along w/ his father the destruction of Jerusalem for one, which occurs about 10 pages into the BoM- don't exactly have to read very far),

• received revelations,

• was shown visions (including seeing the end of the world; when he wrote about these visions of the future from the past, this is pretty clearly a form a prophecy),

• entertained angels,

• spoke with the Lord,

• produced actual, verifiable scripture (not some recycled write-up in a magazine which is but isn't "scripture"),

• demonstrated the power of God to his brothers to such a degree, they literally tried to bow down and worship him,

• comprehensively interpreted Isaiah (something the current 15 won't even touch),

• calmed a giant sea-storm through the power of prayer/faith-

but people are still questioning whether was a "prophet".....

Don’t get me wrong, I never questioned whether Nephi was a prophet. I was simply wondering whether every one of our Book of Mormon prophets have met your criteria and I am not sure yet if all of them do. Will have to read the book with that thought in mind.

And I would be very surprised, if we went into the various Old Testament Gospel Doctrine manuals for teachers and students, if we could not find that part in Exodus where Moses laments/wishes that all men would be prophets, wherein that is part of the lesson plan. So, to require today’s 15 to have started the obvious (to me it seems obvious) seems a little capricious.

Unless I am misunderstanding, are you saying that they are not prophets because they have not articulated that principle? Yet they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets, which would be a really ironic thing for false prophets to do.

[heliocentr1c]

Was Nephi a prophet, in your opinion? I could be drawing a blank. Just trying to remember what prophecies he gave.

And, in order to qualify as a prophet, at what intervals do the prophecies need to be produced? Annually? Semi-annually? Only one per lifetime? Does one lose prophet status if too much time goes between prophecies? Who says so?

Nephi probably isn’t the only one. Will have to check them all against your requirement.

Are you serious?
Nephi made loads of prophecies.
Have you not read the Book of Mormon?

Yeah, I have no idea what's going on right now. It's like common sense disappeared from the face of the earth.

So far, haven't seen a single example of anyone citing a prophecy from the current 15 or of anyone citing an actual example of the 15 clearly teaching the doctrine that members can or should be considered prophets- yet these same men are openly regarded as prophets and teachings which they have never bothered to mention are attributed to them through "extrapolation" and conjecture.

Nephi:

• prophesied (along w/ his father the destruction of Jerusalem for one, which occurs about 10 pages into the BoM- don't exactly have to read very far),

• received revelations,

• was shown visions (including seeing the end of the world; when he wrote about these visions of the future from the past, this is pretty clearly a form a prophecy),

• entertained angels,

• spoke with the Lord,

• produced actual, verifiable scripture (not some recycled write-up in a magazine which is but isn't "scripture"),

• demonstrated the power of God to his brothers to such a degree, they literally tried to bow down and worship him,

• comprehensively interpreted Isaiah (something the current 15 won't even touch),

• calmed a giant sea-storm through the power of prayer/faith-

but people are still questioning whether was a "prophet".....

Don’t get me wrong, I never questioned whether Nephi was a prophet. I was simply wondering whether every one of our Book of Mormon prophets have met your criteria and I am not sure yet if all of them do. Will have to read the book with that thought in mind.

And I would be very surprised, if we went into the various Old Testament Gospel Doctrine manuals for teachers and students, if we could not find that part in Exodus where Moses laments/wishes that all men would be prophets, wherein that is part of the lesson plan. So, to require today’s 15 to have started the obvious (to me it seems obvious) seems a little capricious.

Unless I am misunderstanding, are you saying that they are not prophets because they have not articulated that principle? Yet they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets, which would be a really ironic thing for false prophets to do.

Don’t get me wrong, I never questioned whether Nephi was a prophet. I was simply wondering whether every one of our Book of Mormon prophets have met your criteria and I am not sure yet if all of them do. Will have to read the book with that thought in mind.

It's not technically my criteria, as I never stated it in this thread, but I don't disagree w/ it.

The BoM talks or mentions pretty frequently the "spirit of revelation and prophecy" but also mentions the spirit of revelation and the spirit of prophecy. Sometimes it just says the spirit of revelation and prophecy. At other times, it separates them out. In other words, it's acceptable to think of them as the same spirit. Sometimes it causes the person who it is in to reveal, sometimes to prophesy.

Prophesy is basically a form of revealing something, you're just revealing something which will happen in the future. This is not completely different than, but a step down, imo, from seership. If you're a seer, you've reached a "higher" level in the spirit. If you're a revelator or a prophesier, it's fair to view these as basically equal or the same spirit.

If a person has this spirit (of revelation and prophecy), it's not wrong imo to think of them as a prophet, even if they only produced a revelation but did not "prophesy" per se. However, a more strict or precise definition would be to only call someone a prophet who has produced a prophecy. Neither are wrong in my view, just two different ways of defining a word. One takes into account that the source of both revelation and prophecy is the same spirit. The other parses them out. If God requires them to prophesy, He will give them a prophecy. If He wants them to reveal, He'll give them a revelation. If He wants them to do both, they'll do both.


Typically the people mentioned in the scriptures who are called prophets are given a message from God to deliver to other people. Often this message will have a condition attached to it. It often involves calling people to repent or else something will happen (usually a judgement from God)- this is a form or prophecy while also revealing something - God's will for that people. The message "the prophet" carries is not His own words or for him, it's for other people and the prophet must deliver the message with respect to the bounds the Lord has set on it/him. This is typically the context or meaning that people use the word "prophet" as it relates to "BoM prophets" in my experience. These "prophets" have usually been redeemed and therefore stand in a different position in relation to God than do those who have not. This is why they often talk about their "garments being clean" from blood/sin etc. This blood is associated w/ the sins of that generation to whom they are called to deliver a message. They may also teach these people, minister to them, be friends w/ them, work miracles, etc or not. It just depends. Nephi and Jacob were part of the community to whom they preached/prophesied. Abinadi was not. Samuel the Lamanite was not. Enos ostensibly was.


At the same time, the OT tells us in Amos:

"Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets."

If the Lord has revealed to you one of his secrets/mysteries you are a prophet, imo, but not a prophet who has been called to preach repentance openly necessarily. At least not yet, though you could and at some point probably will be imo. The repentance may be preached openly or tacitly depending on the bounds the lord has set. This is more than just deciding to preach repentance for whatever reason- the Lord has to explicitly instruct you to carry His message to be this "type" of prophet. You have a charge directly from Heaven to be doing it; Not from a man but from God eg:

"Wherefore, I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having firstly obtained mine errand from the Lord."

"And now it came to pass that I, Enos, went about among the people of Nephi, prophesying of things to come and testifying of the things...having been wrought upon by the power of God that I must preach and prophesy unto this people and declare the word according to the truth which is in Christ"


Additionally, John tells us:

"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy"

A person has to work out in their mind what they think this means. If it's simply having a testimony of Jesus, then most LDS have the spirit of prophecy, as long as their testimony is sincere.

All of the BoM prophets who can be considered prophets testified of Christ. This was not their opinion, conjecture, or "testimony" simply based on having read the scriptures or being taught that by someone. They had the reality of Christ communicated to them by heaven through the spirit of revelation and prophecy or else by some higher spirit. This is part what the "testimony of Jesus" means imo, in the above context. Prophesying of Christ at this time was pretty revolutionary bc He had not come yet for the much of the BoM time period. He was not nearly as universally accepted as He is now among "Christian" nations. Many people were killed or nearly killed for daring to believe He would come.


A lot of problems arise bc we're sloppy about how we define words and often take them out of context or parse them in a way that that the text doesn't justify. Also, different prophets have used the same words to mean different things at times.

And I would be very surprised, if we went into the various Old Testament Gospel Doctrine manuals for teachers and students, if we could not find that part in Exodus where Moses laments/wishes that all men would be prophets, wherein that is part of the lesson plan. So, to require today’s 15 to have started the obvious (to me it seems obvious) seems a little capricious.

If you want to check this out obviously you can. It's not what I'm asking though, really. I'm asking about them actively or openly teaching it themselves - out of their own mouths/writings.

The interpretation you're taking is disingenuous imo. Just bc some reference to Moses may or may not be in some manual which was produced whenever it was produced under whoever's supervision and may or may not be covered by the teacher teaching that lesson isn't really the same as teaching it themselves.

If it was truly a priority to the 15, they would be actively teaching it themselves. This is what I'm getting at. They do not teach it. They may arrange for others to maybe teach it (though I've never heard it in any lesson) but that's not the same as them teaching it. To maintain that they "teach" it is disingenuous imo.


I didn't mean to be rude in my last response, I was just a little taken aback that someone who was talking about people "teaching us how to be prophets" was unsure whether Nephi was a prophet or not, ie If you don't know whether Nephi was a prophet, how could you realistically know whether what you were being taught would make you become a prophet or not? That's all.

[larsenb]

Are you serious?
Nephi made loads of prophecies.
Have you not read the Book of Mormon?

Yes, I have read it more times than I can count. And off the top of my head I can think of teachings, but not necessarily prophecies of the future. Lehi prophesied of the destruction of Jerusalem, and Nephi received a lot of revelation on various topics, such as supporting his father, what to do about Laban, how to build a ship, etc. But according to this conversation that is not enough. Is the interpretation of Lehi’s dream even a prophecy? They want prophecy, not mere revelation.

Nephi made several prophecies for our day. Some of them can be found in 2nd Nephi 30:3-10. Here is a specific one in Verse 10 that I think we are seeing the start of being fulfilled, as we speak. I've never seen such a division developing in our country as the one we're seeing now, and it follows along the lines of the 'war in heaven': forced good behavior vs. good behavior as a result of free agency.

"For the time speedily cometh that the Lord God shall cause a great division among the people, and the wicked will he destroy; and he will spare his people, yea, even if it so be that he must destroy the wicked by fire."

[Allison]

Are you serious?
Nephi made loads of prophecies.
Have you not read the Book of Mormon?

Yeah, I have no idea what's going on right now. It's like common sense disappeared from the face of the earth.

So far, haven't seen a single example of anyone citing a prophecy from the current 15 or of anyone citing an actual example of the 15 clearly teaching the doctrine that members can or should be considered prophets- yet these same men are openly regarded as prophets and teachings which they have never bothered to mention are attributed to them through "extrapolation" and conjecture.

Nephi:

• prophesied (along w/ his father the destruction of Jerusalem for one, which occurs about 10 pages into the BoM- don't exactly have to read very far),

• received revelations,

• was shown visions (including seeing the end of the world; when he wrote about these visions of the future from the past, this is pretty clearly a form a prophecy),

• entertained angels,

• spoke with the Lord,

• produced actual, verifiable scripture (not some recycled write-up in a magazine which is but isn't "scripture"),

• demonstrated the power of God to his brothers to such a degree, they literally tried to bow down and worship him,

• comprehensively interpreted Isaiah (something the current 15 won't even touch),

• calmed a giant sea-storm through the power of prayer/faith-

but people are still questioning whether was a "prophet".....

Don’t get me wrong, I never questioned whether Nephi was a prophet. I was simply wondering whether every one of our Book of Mormon prophets have met your criteria and I am not sure yet if all of them do. Will have to read the book with that thought in mind.

And I would be very surprised, if we went into the various Old Testament Gospel Doctrine manuals for teachers and students, if we could not find that part in Exodus where Moses laments/wishes that all men would be prophets, wherein that is part of the lesson plan. So, to require today’s 15 to have started the obvious (to me it seems obvious) seems a little capricious.

Unless I am misunderstanding, are you saying that they are not prophets because they have not articulated that principle? Yet they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets, which would be a really ironic thing for false prophets to do.

Don’t get me wrong, I never questioned whether Nephi was a prophet. I was simply wondering whether every one of our Book of Mormon prophets have met your criteria and I am not sure yet if all of them do. Will have to read the book with that thought in mind.

It's not technically my criteria, as I never stated it in this thread, but I don't disagree w/ it.

The BoM talks or mentions pretty frequently the "spirit of revelation and prophecy" but also mentions the spirit of revelation and the spirit of prophecy. Sometimes it just says the spirit of revelation and prophecy. At other times, it separates them out. In other words, it's acceptable to think of them as the same spirit. Sometimes it causes the person who it is in to reveal, sometimes to prophesy.

Prophesy is basically a form of revealing something, you're just revealing something which will happen in the future. This is not completely different than, but a step down, imo, from seership. If you're a seer, you've reached a "higher" level in the spirit. If you're a revelator or a prophesier, it's fair to view these as basically equal or the same spirit.

If a person has this spirit (of revelation and prophecy), it's not wrong imo to think of them as a prophet, even if they only produced a revelation but did not "prophesy" per se. However, a more strict or precise definition would be to only call someone a prophet who has produced a prophecy. Neither are wrong in my view, just two different ways of defining a word. One takes into account that the source of both revelation and prophecy is the same spirit. The other parses them out. If God requires them to prophesy, He will give them a prophecy. If He wants them to reveal, He'll give them a revelation. If He wants them to do both, they'll do both.


Typically the people mentioned in the scriptures who are called prophets are given a message from God to deliver to other people. Often this message will have a condition attached to it. It often involves calling people to repent or else something will happen (usually a judgement from God)- this is a form or prophecy while also revealing something - God's will for that people. The message "the prophet" carries is not His own words or for him, it's for other people and the prophet must deliver the message with respect to the bounds the Lord has set on it/him. This is typically the context or meaning that people use the word "prophet" as it relates to "BoM prophets" in my experience. These "prophets" have usually been redeemed and therefore stand in a different position in relation to God than do those who have not. This is why they often talk about their "garments being clean" from blood/sin etc. This blood is associated w/ the sins of that generation to whom they are called to deliver a message. They may also teach these people, minister to them, be friends w/ them, work miracles, etc or not. It just depends. Nephi and Jacob were part of the community to whom they preached/prophesied. Abinadi was not. Samuel the Lamanite was not. Enos ostensibly was.


At the same time, the OT tells us in Amos:

"Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets."

If the Lord has revealed to you one of his secrets/mysteries you are a prophet, imo, but not a prophet who has been called to preach repentance openly necessarily. At least not yet, though you could and at some point probably will be imo. The repentance may be preached openly or tacitly depending on the bounds the lord has set. This is more than just deciding to preach repentance for whatever reason- the Lord has to explicitly instruct you to carry His message to be this "type" of prophet. You have a charge directly from Heaven to be doing it; Not from a man but from God eg:

"Wherefore, I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having firstly obtained mine errand from the Lord."

"And now it came to pass that I, Enos, went about among the people of Nephi, prophesying of things to come and testifying of the things...having been wrought upon by the power of God that I must preach and prophesy unto this people and declare the word according to the truth which is in Christ"


Additionally, John tells us:

"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy"

A person has to work out in their mind what they think this means. If it's simply having a testimony of Jesus, then most LDS have the spirit of prophecy, as long as their testimony is sincere.

All of the BoM prophets who can be considered prophets testified of Christ. This was not their opinion, conjecture, or "testimony" simply based on having read the scriptures or being taught that by someone. They had the reality of Christ communicated to them by heaven through the spirit of revelation and prophecy or else by some higher spirit. This is part what the "testimony of Jesus" means imo, in the above context. Prophesying of Christ at this time was pretty revolutionary bc He had not come yet for the much of the BoM time period. He was not nearly as universally accepted as He is now among "Christian" nations. Many people were killed or nearly killed for daring to believe He would come.


A lot of problems arise bc we're sloppy about how we define words and often take them out of context or parse them in a way that that the text doesn't justify. Also, different prophets have used the same words to mean different things at times.

And I would be very surprised, if we went into the various Old Testament Gospel Doctrine manuals for teachers and students, if we could not find that part in Exodus where Moses laments/wishes that all men would be prophets, wherein that is part of the lesson plan. So, to require today’s 15 to have started the obvious (to me it seems obvious) seems a little capricious.

If you want to check this out obviously you can. It's not what I'm asking though, really. I'm asking about them actively or openly teaching it themselves - out of their own mouths/writings.

The interpretation you're taking is disingenuous imo. Just bc some reference to Moses may or may not be in some manual which was produced whenever it was produced under whoever's supervision and may or may not be covered by the teacher teaching that lesson isn't really the same as teaching it themselves.

If it was truly a priority to the 15, they would be actively teaching it themselves. This is what I'm getting at. They do not teach it. They may arrange for others to maybe teach it (though I've never heard it in any lesson) but that's not the same as them teaching it. To maintain that they "teach" it is disingenuous imo.


I didn't mean to be rude in my last response, I was just a little taken aback that someone who was talking about people "teaching us how to be prophets" was unsure whether Nephi was a prophet or not, ie If you don't know whether Nephi was a prophet, how could you realistically know whether what you were being taught would make you become a prophet or not? That's all.

I guess what I am wondering is, why do I know and understand this principle so well, that all men (and women) not only can, but should be prophets? I think of discussions about this whenever I read Moses’ lament. I just assume it’s something that we talk about fairly regularly at church, but maybe I have just had exceptional teachers. Is this not a well-known doctrine? And isn’t that the whole idea of their teaching us to grow into the principle of revelation?

It sounds like a tedious word search project to me, but maybe someone would want to do that. If you found that all or most of them had made a statement to that effect, would it put your mind(s) at ease, and could we then just let them be prophets, even with their human weaknesses?

I often have to remind myself of a saying, “Mind your own motes,” whenever I find myself getting hung up on the weaknesses of others. I’ve got my hands full just wrestling with my own weaknesses, to worry very much about someone else’s deficiencies.

[heliocentr1c]

Yeah, I have no idea what's going on right now. It's like common sense disappeared from the face of the earth.

So far, haven't seen a single example of anyone citing a prophecy from the current 15 or of anyone citing an actual example of the 15 clearly teaching the doctrine that members can or should be considered prophets- yet these same men are openly regarded as prophets and teachings which they have never bothered to mention are attributed to them through "extrapolation" and conjecture.

Nephi:

• prophesied (along w/ his father the destruction of Jerusalem for one, which occurs about 10 pages into the BoM- don't exactly have to read very far),

• received revelations,

• was shown visions (including seeing the end of the world; when he wrote about these visions of the future from the past, this is pretty clearly a form a prophecy),

• entertained angels,

• spoke with the Lord,

• produced actual, verifiable scripture (not some recycled write-up in a magazine which is but isn't "scripture"),

• demonstrated the power of God to his brothers to such a degree, they literally tried to bow down and worship him,

• comprehensively interpreted Isaiah (something the current 15 won't even touch),

• calmed a giant sea-storm through the power of prayer/faith-

but people are still questioning whether was a "prophet".....

Don’t get me wrong, I never questioned whether Nephi was a prophet. I was simply wondering whether every one of our Book of Mormon prophets have met your criteria and I am not sure yet if all of them do. Will have to read the book with that thought in mind.

And I would be very surprised, if we went into the various Old Testament Gospel Doctrine manuals for teachers and students, if we could not find that part in Exodus where Moses laments/wishes that all men would be prophets, wherein that is part of the lesson plan. So, to require today’s 15 to have started the obvious (to me it seems obvious) seems a little capricious.

Unless I am misunderstanding, are you saying that they are not prophets because they have not articulated that principle? Yet they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets, which would be a really ironic thing for false prophets to do.

Don’t get me wrong, I never questioned whether Nephi was a prophet. I was simply wondering whether every one of our Book of Mormon prophets have met your criteria and I am not sure yet if all of them do. Will have to read the book with that thought in mind.

It's not technically my criteria, as I never stated it in this thread, but I don't disagree w/ it.

The BoM talks or mentions pretty frequently the "spirit of revelation and prophecy" but also mentions the spirit of revelation and the spirit of prophecy. Sometimes it just says the spirit of revelation and prophecy. At other times, it separates them out. In other words, it's acceptable to think of them as the same spirit. Sometimes it causes the person who it is in to reveal, sometimes to prophesy.

Prophesy is basically a form of revealing something, you're just revealing something which will happen in the future. This is not completely different than, but a step down, imo, from seership. If you're a seer, you've reached a "higher" level in the spirit. If you're a revelator or a prophesier, it's fair to view these as basically equal or the same spirit.

If a person has this spirit (of revelation and prophecy), it's not wrong imo to think of them as a prophet, even if they only produced a revelation but did not "prophesy" per se. However, a more strict or precise definition would be to only call someone a prophet who has produced a prophecy. Neither are wrong in my view, just two different ways of defining a word. One takes into account that the source of both revelation and prophecy is the same spirit. The other parses them out. If God requires them to prophesy, He will give them a prophecy. If He wants them to reveal, He'll give them a revelation. If He wants them to do both, they'll do both.


Typically the people mentioned in the scriptures who are called prophets are given a message from God to deliver to other people. Often this message will have a condition attached to it. It often involves calling people to repent or else something will happen (usually a judgement from God)- this is a form or prophecy while also revealing something - God's will for that people. The message "the prophet" carries is not His own words or for him, it's for other people and the prophet must deliver the message with respect to the bounds the Lord has set on it/him. This is typically the context or meaning that people use the word "prophet" as it relates to "BoM prophets" in my experience. These "prophets" have usually been redeemed and therefore stand in a different position in relation to God than do those who have not. This is why they often talk about their "garments being clean" from blood/sin etc. This blood is associated w/ the sins of that generation to whom they are called to deliver a message. They may also teach these people, minister to them, be friends w/ them, work miracles, etc or not. It just depends. Nephi and Jacob were part of the community to whom they preached/prophesied. Abinadi was not. Samuel the Lamanite was not. Enos ostensibly was.


At the same time, the OT tells us in Amos:

"Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets."

If the Lord has revealed to you one of his secrets/mysteries you are a prophet, imo, but not a prophet who has been called to preach repentance openly necessarily. At least not yet, though you could and at some point probably will be imo. The repentance may be preached openly or tacitly depending on the bounds the lord has set. This is more than just deciding to preach repentance for whatever reason- the Lord has to explicitly instruct you to carry His message to be this "type" of prophet. You have a charge directly from Heaven to be doing it; Not from a man but from God eg:

"Wherefore, I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having firstly obtained mine errand from the Lord."

"And now it came to pass that I, Enos, went about among the people of Nephi, prophesying of things to come and testifying of the things...having been wrought upon by the power of God that I must preach and prophesy unto this people and declare the word according to the truth which is in Christ"


Additionally, John tells us:

"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy"

A person has to work out in their mind what they think this means. If it's simply having a testimony of Jesus, then most LDS have the spirit of prophecy, as long as their testimony is sincere.

All of the BoM prophets who can be considered prophets testified of Christ. This was not their opinion, conjecture, or "testimony" simply based on having read the scriptures or being taught that by someone. They had the reality of Christ communicated to them by heaven through the spirit of revelation and prophecy or else by some higher spirit. This is part what the "testimony of Jesus" means imo, in the above context. Prophesying of Christ at this time was pretty revolutionary bc He had not come yet for the much of the BoM time period. He was not nearly as universally accepted as He is now among "Christian" nations. Many people were killed or nearly killed for daring to believe He would come.


A lot of problems arise bc we're sloppy about how we define words and often take them out of context or parse them in a way that that the text doesn't justify. Also, different prophets have used the same words to mean different things at times.

And I would be very surprised, if we went into the various Old Testament Gospel Doctrine manuals for teachers and students, if we could not find that part in Exodus where Moses laments/wishes that all men would be prophets, wherein that is part of the lesson plan. So, to require today’s 15 to have started the obvious (to me it seems obvious) seems a little capricious.

If you want to check this out obviously you can. It's not what I'm asking though, really. I'm asking about them actively or openly teaching it themselves - out of their own mouths/writings.

The interpretation you're taking is disingenuous imo. Just bc some reference to Moses may or may not be in some manual which was produced whenever it was produced under whoever's supervision and may or may not be covered by the teacher teaching that lesson isn't really the same as teaching it themselves.

If it was truly a priority to the 15, they would be actively teaching it themselves. This is what I'm getting at. They do not teach it. They may arrange for others to maybe teach it (though I've never heard it in any lesson) but that's not the same as them teaching it. To maintain that they "teach" it is disingenuous imo.


I didn't mean to be rude in my last response, I was just a little taken aback that someone who was talking about people "teaching us how to be prophets" was unsure whether Nephi was a prophet or not, ie If you don't know whether Nephi was a prophet, how could you realistically know whether what you were being taught would make you become a prophet or not? That's all.

I guess what I am wondering is, why do I know and understand this principle so well, that all men (and women) not only can, but should be prophets? I think of discussions about this whenever I read Moses’ lament. I just assume it’s something that we talk about fairly regularly at church, but maybe I have just had exceptional teachers. Is this not a well-known doctrine? And isn’t that the whole idea of their teaching us to grow into the principle of revelation?

It sounds like a tedious word search project to me, but maybe someone would want to do that. If you found that all or most of them had made a statement to that effect, would it put your mind(s) at ease, and could we then just let them be prophets, even with their human weaknesses?

I often have to remind myself of a saying, “Mind your own motes,” whenever I find myself getting hung up on the weaknesses of others. I’ve got my hands full just wrestling with my own weaknesses, to worry very much about someone else’s deficiencies.

Again, I find your response disingenuous. I have no idea why you understand the principle so well bc I’m not you. I have no way of knowing what your life is like.

However, when you make statements like “they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets” but then the only example you can come up w/ is how you’re pretty sure it’s in the OT teaching manual...it comes off as, well, disingenuous. It’s hyperbolic in nature. LDS culture is becoming more and lore hyperbolic.

If you believe them teaching the principe of personal revelation means they’re teaching people how to be prophets, you can obviously believe this. But others may have come to another conclusion. If you could provide a quotation of them explaining or referencing a scripture about how personal revelation means you’re a prophet, that would obviously be very helpful.

I often have to remind myself of a saying, “Mind your own motes,” whenever I find myself getting hung up on the weaknesses of others. I’ve got my hands full just wrestling with my own weaknesses, to worry very much about someone else’s deficiencies.

This whole paragraph is just you trying to insinuate that people are too focused on their weaknesses to see them as prophets. Again, a bit disingenuous/assuming. I’m comfortable w/ prophets having weaknesses. They’re just men. The scriptures clearly state they have weaknesses. I’ve never said anything otherwise. What I’m not comfortable w/ are statements like

“they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets”

But then the only concrete examples you can come up w/ are “personal revelation” and ONE reference to Moses you never even quoted them bringing up. Again, kinda disingenuous. You’re insinuating I have a personal problem w/ them to shift focus from the fact that they’ve never actually explicitly taught the personal revelation = being a prophet thing.

Can you quote one thing I’ve said that is untrue or defamatory about them?

[Allison]

Don’t get me wrong, I never questioned whether Nephi was a prophet. I was simply wondering whether every one of our Book of Mormon prophets have met your criteria and I am not sure yet if all of them do. Will have to read the book with that thought in mind.

And I would be very surprised, if we went into the various Old Testament Gospel Doctrine manuals for teachers and students, if we could not find that part in Exodus where Moses laments/wishes that all men would be prophets, wherein that is part of the lesson plan. So, to require today’s 15 to have started the obvious (to me it seems obvious) seems a little capricious.

Unless I am misunderstanding, are you saying that they are not prophets because they have not articulated that principle? Yet they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets, which would be a really ironic thing for false prophets to do.

Don’t get me wrong, I never questioned whether Nephi was a prophet. I was simply wondering whether every one of our Book of Mormon prophets have met your criteria and I am not sure yet if all of them do. Will have to read the book with that thought in mind.

It's not technically my criteria, as I never stated it in this thread, but I don't disagree w/ it.

The BoM talks or mentions pretty frequently the "spirit of revelation and prophecy" but also mentions the spirit of revelation and the spirit of prophecy. Sometimes it just says the spirit of revelation and prophecy. At other times, it separates them out. In other words, it's acceptable to think of them as the same spirit. Sometimes it causes the person who it is in to reveal, sometimes to prophesy.

Prophesy is basically a form of revealing something, you're just revealing something which will happen in the future. This is not completely different than, but a step down, imo, from seership. If you're a seer, you've reached a "higher" level in the spirit. If you're a revelator or a prophesier, it's fair to view these as basically equal or the same spirit.

If a person has this spirit (of revelation and prophecy), it's not wrong imo to think of them as a prophet, even if they only produced a revelation but did not "prophesy" per se. However, a more strict or precise definition would be to only call someone a prophet who has produced a prophecy. Neither are wrong in my view, just two different ways of defining a word. One takes into account that the source of both revelation and prophecy is the same spirit. The other parses them out. If God requires them to prophesy, He will give them a prophecy. If He wants them to reveal, He'll give them a revelation. If He wants them to do both, they'll do both.


Typically the people mentioned in the scriptures who are called prophets are given a message from God to deliver to other people. Often this message will have a condition attached to it. It often involves calling people to repent or else something will happen (usually a judgement from God)- this is a form or prophecy while also revealing something - God's will for that people. The message "the prophet" carries is not His own words or for him, it's for other people and the prophet must deliver the message with respect to the bounds the Lord has set on it/him. This is typically the context or meaning that people use the word "prophet" as it relates to "BoM prophets" in my experience. These "prophets" have usually been redeemed and therefore stand in a different position in relation to God than do those who have not. This is why they often talk about their "garments being clean" from blood/sin etc. This blood is associated w/ the sins of that generation to whom they are called to deliver a message. They may also teach these people, minister to them, be friends w/ them, work miracles, etc or not. It just depends. Nephi and Jacob were part of the community to whom they preached/prophesied. Abinadi was not. Samuel the Lamanite was not. Enos ostensibly was.


At the same time, the OT tells us in Amos:

"Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets."

If the Lord has revealed to you one of his secrets/mysteries you are a prophet, imo, but not a prophet who has been called to preach repentance openly necessarily. At least not yet, though you could and at some point probably will be imo. The repentance may be preached openly or tacitly depending on the bounds the lord has set. This is more than just deciding to preach repentance for whatever reason- the Lord has to explicitly instruct you to carry His message to be this "type" of prophet. You have a charge directly from Heaven to be doing it; Not from a man but from God eg:

"Wherefore, I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having firstly obtained mine errand from the Lord."

"And now it came to pass that I, Enos, went about among the people of Nephi, prophesying of things to come and testifying of the things...having been wrought upon by the power of God that I must preach and prophesy unto this people and declare the word according to the truth which is in Christ"


Additionally, John tells us:

"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy"

A person has to work out in their mind what they think this means. If it's simply having a testimony of Jesus, then most LDS have the spirit of prophecy, as long as their testimony is sincere.

All of the BoM prophets who can be considered prophets testified of Christ. This was not their opinion, conjecture, or "testimony" simply based on having read the scriptures or being taught that by someone. They had the reality of Christ communicated to them by heaven through the spirit of revelation and prophecy or else by some higher spirit. This is part what the "testimony of Jesus" means imo, in the above context. Prophesying of Christ at this time was pretty revolutionary bc He had not come yet for the much of the BoM time period. He was not nearly as universally accepted as He is now among "Christian" nations. Many people were killed or nearly killed for daring to believe He would come.


A lot of problems arise bc we're sloppy about how we define words and often take them out of context or parse them in a way that that the text doesn't justify. Also, different prophets have used the same words to mean different things at times.

And I would be very surprised, if we went into the various Old Testament Gospel Doctrine manuals for teachers and students, if we could not find that part in Exodus where Moses laments/wishes that all men would be prophets, wherein that is part of the lesson plan. So, to require today’s 15 to have started the obvious (to me it seems obvious) seems a little capricious.

If you want to check this out obviously you can. It's not what I'm asking though, really. I'm asking about them actively or openly teaching it themselves - out of their own mouths/writings.

The interpretation you're taking is disingenuous imo. Just bc some reference to Moses may or may not be in some manual which was produced whenever it was produced under whoever's supervision and may or may not be covered by the teacher teaching that lesson isn't really the same as teaching it themselves.

If it was truly a priority to the 15, they would be actively teaching it themselves. This is what I'm getting at. They do not teach it. They may arrange for others to maybe teach it (though I've never heard it in any lesson) but that's not the same as them teaching it. To maintain that they "teach" it is disingenuous imo.


I didn't mean to be rude in my last response, I was just a little taken aback that someone who was talking about people "teaching us how to be prophets" was unsure whether Nephi was a prophet or not, ie If you don't know whether Nephi was a prophet, how could you realistically know whether what you were being taught would make you become a prophet or not? That's all.

I guess what I am wondering is, why do I know and understand this principle so well, that all men (and women) not only can, but should be prophets? I think of discussions about this whenever I read Moses’ lament. I just assume it’s something that we talk about fairly regularly at church, but maybe I have just had exceptional teachers. Is this not a well-known doctrine? And isn’t that the whole idea of their teaching us to grow into the principle of revelation?

It sounds like a tedious word search project to me, but maybe someone would want to do that. If you found that all or most of them had made a statement to that effect, would it put your mind(s) at ease, and could we then just let them be prophets, even with their human weaknesses?

I often have to remind myself of a saying, “Mind your own motes,” whenever I find myself getting hung up on the weaknesses of others. I’ve got my hands full just wrestling with my own weaknesses, to worry very much about someone else’s deficiencies.

Again, I find your response disingenuous. I have no idea why you understand the principle so well bc I’m not you. I have no way of knowing what your life is like.

However, when you make statements like “they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets” but then the only example you can come up w/ is how you’re pretty sure it’s in the OT teaching manual...it comes off as, well, disingenuous. It’s hyperbolic in nature. LDS culture is becoming more and lore hyperbolic.

If you believe them teaching the principe of personal revelation means they’re teaching people how to be prophets, you can obviously believe this. But others may have come to another conclusion. If you could provide a quotation of them explaining or referencing a scripture about how personal revelation means you’re a prophet, that would obviously be very helpful.

I often have to remind myself of a saying, “Mind your own motes,” whenever I find myself getting hung up on the weaknesses of others. I’ve got my hands full just wrestling with my own weaknesses, to worry very much about someone else’s deficiencies.

This whole paragraph is just you trying to insinuate that people are too focused on their weaknesses to see them as prophets. Again, a bit disingenuous/assuming. I’m comfortable w/ prophets having weaknesses. They’re just men. The scriptures clearly state they have weaknesses. I’ve never said anything otherwise. What I’m not comfortable w/ are statements like

“they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets”

But then the only concrete examples you can come up w/ are “personal revelation” and ONE reference to Moses you never even quoted them bringing up. Again, kinda disingenuous. You’re insinuating I have a personal problem w/ them to shift focus from the fact that they’ve never actually explicitly taught the personal revelation = being a prophet thing.

Can you quote one thing I’ve said that is untrue or defamatory about them?

No, I am saying I don’t think they need to have said what you want them to have said.

And yes, they are trying like mad to teach us to (and how to) receive revelation. Check out the January 2021 Liahona, if you don’t believe me.

I get it that that is not enough for you (all), but I think that is your problem, not theirs.

[JohnnyL]

Sounds like it's time to write letters!

I'm doing it now.

Done.

[heliocentr1c]

It's not technically my criteria, as I never stated it in this thread, but I don't disagree w/ it.

The BoM talks or mentions pretty frequently the "spirit of revelation and prophecy" but also mentions the spirit of revelation and the spirit of prophecy. Sometimes it just says the spirit of revelation and prophecy. At other times, it separates them out. In other words, it's acceptable to think of them as the same spirit. Sometimes it causes the person who it is in to reveal, sometimes to prophesy.

Prophesy is basically a form of revealing something, you're just revealing something which will happen in the future. This is not completely different than, but a step down, imo, from seership. If you're a seer, you've reached a "higher" level in the spirit. If you're a revelator or a prophesier, it's fair to view these as basically equal or the same spirit.

If a person has this spirit (of revelation and prophecy), it's not wrong imo to think of them as a prophet, even if they only produced a revelation but did not "prophesy" per se. However, a more strict or precise definition would be to only call someone a prophet who has produced a prophecy. Neither are wrong in my view, just two different ways of defining a word. One takes into account that the source of both revelation and prophecy is the same spirit. The other parses them out. If God requires them to prophesy, He will give them a prophecy. If He wants them to reveal, He'll give them a revelation. If He wants them to do both, they'll do both.


Typically the people mentioned in the scriptures who are called prophets are given a message from God to deliver to other people. Often this message will have a condition attached to it. It often involves calling people to repent or else something will happen (usually a judgement from God)- this is a form or prophecy while also revealing something - God's will for that people. The message "the prophet" carries is not His own words or for him, it's for other people and the prophet must deliver the message with respect to the bounds the Lord has set on it/him. This is typically the context or meaning that people use the word "prophet" as it relates to "BoM prophets" in my experience. These "prophets" have usually been redeemed and therefore stand in a different position in relation to God than do those who have not. This is why they often talk about their "garments being clean" from blood/sin etc. This blood is associated w/ the sins of that generation to whom they are called to deliver a message. They may also teach these people, minister to them, be friends w/ them, work miracles, etc or not. It just depends. Nephi and Jacob were part of the community to whom they preached/prophesied. Abinadi was not. Samuel the Lamanite was not. Enos ostensibly was.


At the same time, the OT tells us in Amos:

"Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets."

If the Lord has revealed to you one of his secrets/mysteries you are a prophet, imo, but not a prophet who has been called to preach repentance openly necessarily. At least not yet, though you could and at some point probably will be imo. The repentance may be preached openly or tacitly depending on the bounds the lord has set. This is more than just deciding to preach repentance for whatever reason- the Lord has to explicitly instruct you to carry His message to be this "type" of prophet. You have a charge directly from Heaven to be doing it; Not from a man but from God eg:

"Wherefore, I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having firstly obtained mine errand from the Lord."

"And now it came to pass that I, Enos, went about among the people of Nephi, prophesying of things to come and testifying of the things...having been wrought upon by the power of God that I must preach and prophesy unto this people and declare the word according to the truth which is in Christ"


Additionally, John tells us:

"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy"

A person has to work out in their mind what they think this means. If it's simply having a testimony of Jesus, then most LDS have the spirit of prophecy, as long as their testimony is sincere.

All of the BoM prophets who can be considered prophets testified of Christ. This was not their opinion, conjecture, or "testimony" simply based on having read the scriptures or being taught that by someone. They had the reality of Christ communicated to them by heaven through the spirit of revelation and prophecy or else by some higher spirit. This is part what the "testimony of Jesus" means imo, in the above context. Prophesying of Christ at this time was pretty revolutionary bc He had not come yet for the much of the BoM time period. He was not nearly as universally accepted as He is now among "Christian" nations. Many people were killed or nearly killed for daring to believe He would come.


A lot of problems arise bc we're sloppy about how we define words and often take them out of context or parse them in a way that that the text doesn't justify. Also, different prophets have used the same words to mean different things at times.




If you want to check this out obviously you can. It's not what I'm asking though, really. I'm asking about them actively or openly teaching it themselves - out of their own mouths/writings.

The interpretation you're taking is disingenuous imo. Just bc some reference to Moses may or may not be in some manual which was produced whenever it was produced under whoever's supervision and may or may not be covered by the teacher teaching that lesson isn't really the same as teaching it themselves.

If it was truly a priority to the 15, they would be actively teaching it themselves. This is what I'm getting at. They do not teach it. They may arrange for others to maybe teach it (though I've never heard it in any lesson) but that's not the same as them teaching it. To maintain that they "teach" it is disingenuous imo.


I didn't mean to be rude in my last response, I was just a little taken aback that someone who was talking about people "teaching us how to be prophets" was unsure whether Nephi was a prophet or not, ie If you don't know whether Nephi was a prophet, how could you realistically know whether what you were being taught would make you become a prophet or not? That's all.

I guess what I am wondering is, why do I know and understand this principle so well, that all men (and women) not only can, but should be prophets? I think of discussions about this whenever I read Moses’ lament. I just assume it’s something that we talk about fairly regularly at church, but maybe I have just had exceptional teachers. Is this not a well-known doctrine? And isn’t that the whole idea of their teaching us to grow into the principle of revelation?

It sounds like a tedious word search project to me, but maybe someone would want to do that. If you found that all or most of them had made a statement to that effect, would it put your mind(s) at ease, and could we then just let them be prophets, even with their human weaknesses?

I often have to remind myself of a saying, “Mind your own motes,” whenever I find myself getting hung up on the weaknesses of others. I’ve got my hands full just wrestling with my own weaknesses, to worry very much about someone else’s deficiencies.

Again, I find your response disingenuous. I have no idea why you understand the principle so well bc I’m not you. I have no way of knowing what your life is like.

However, when you make statements like “they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets” but then the only example you can come up w/ is how you’re pretty sure it’s in the OT teaching manual...it comes off as, well, disingenuous. It’s hyperbolic in nature. LDS culture is becoming more and lore hyperbolic.

If you believe them teaching the principe of personal revelation means they’re teaching people how to be prophets, you can obviously believe this. But others may have come to another conclusion. If you could provide a quotation of them explaining or referencing a scripture about how personal revelation means you’re a prophet, that would obviously be very helpful.

I often have to remind myself of a saying, “Mind your own motes,” whenever I find myself getting hung up on the weaknesses of others. I’ve got my hands full just wrestling with my own weaknesses, to worry very much about someone else’s deficiencies.

This whole paragraph is just you trying to insinuate that people are too focused on their weaknesses to see them as prophets. Again, a bit disingenuous/assuming. I’m comfortable w/ prophets having weaknesses. They’re just men. The scriptures clearly state they have weaknesses. I’ve never said anything otherwise. What I’m not comfortable w/ are statements like

“they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets”

But then the only concrete examples you can come up w/ are “personal revelation” and ONE reference to Moses you never even quoted them bringing up. Again, kinda disingenuous. You’re insinuating I have a personal problem w/ them to shift focus from the fact that they’ve never actually explicitly taught the personal revelation = being a prophet thing.

Can you quote one thing I’ve said that is untrue or defamatory about them?

No, I am saying I don’t think they need to have said what you want them to have said.

And yes, they are trying like mad to teach us to (and how to) receive revelation. Check out the January 2021 Liahona, if you don’t believe me.

I get it that that is not enough for you (all), but I think that is your problem, not theirs.

I read this article. At no point does it equate personal revelation to being a prophet.

It talks about growing into revelation. It's basically boilerplate teachings on getting promptings from the HG. It never mentions, implies, or alludes to this making one a prophet.

That doesn't mean what Nelson is saying isn't true, or that it's a bad article, he just never actually says, implies or suggests that receiving or growing into revelation makes you a prophet- therefore he never actually teaches the principle that receiving revelation = being a prophet.

He actually juxtaposes the position of those reading the article against what he refers to as the "words of living prophets" which is clear from context means the 15 GAs at the head of the LDS church. He encourages those reading the article to follow the words of these prophets. These are the only people referred to as prophets in the entirety of the article other than JS.

If you want to believe receiving promptings from the HG makes one a prophet, you can, but attributing the idea to something Nelson taught is disrespectful of his teachings. If you really believe he is a prophet, shouldn't you hold his words in a little more regard?

It's clear from the temple recommend questions that what you're arguing is not in-line w/ church policy as well. The only prophets, seers, and revelators recognized by the LDS church are the current 15- any other person is not sustained or recognized as a prophet. If you really do believe that those questions are inspired by God, shouldn't you treat them w/ more respect?

The entirety of your argument rests on you loosely 'inferring' it from scattered teachings of the 15 (without being able to cite an explicit example of the actual teaching). When repeatedly asked to provide an explicit citation, you simply reference an entire article or manual, thereby putting the burden on someone else to verify the thing you're claiming. In other words, you don't even bother to back up the thing you're claiming except very tenuously - you expect other people to take time out of their lives to verify what you're saying instead of doing it yourself.

[Allison]

I guess what I am wondering is, why do I know and understand this principle so well, that all men (and women) not only can, but should be prophets? I think of discussions about this whenever I read Moses’ lament. I just assume it’s something that we talk about fairly regularly at church, but maybe I have just had exceptional teachers. Is this not a well-known doctrine? And isn’t that the whole idea of their teaching us to grow into the principle of revelation?

It sounds like a tedious word search project to me, but maybe someone would want to do that. If you found that all or most of them had made a statement to that effect, would it put your mind(s) at ease, and could we then just let them be prophets, even with their human weaknesses?

I often have to remind myself of a saying, “Mind your own motes,” whenever I find myself getting hung up on the weaknesses of others. I’ve got my hands full just wrestling with my own weaknesses, to worry very much about someone else’s deficiencies.

Again, I find your response disingenuous. I have no idea why you understand the principle so well bc I’m not you. I have no way of knowing what your life is like.

However, when you make statements like “they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets” but then the only example you can come up w/ is how you’re pretty sure it’s in the OT teaching manual...it comes off as, well, disingenuous. It’s hyperbolic in nature. LDS culture is becoming more and lore hyperbolic.

If you believe them teaching the principe of personal revelation means they’re teaching people how to be prophets, you can obviously believe this. But others may have come to another conclusion. If you could provide a quotation of them explaining or referencing a scripture about how personal revelation means you’re a prophet, that would obviously be very helpful.

I often have to remind myself of a saying, “Mind your own motes,” whenever I find myself getting hung up on the weaknesses of others. I’ve got my hands full just wrestling with my own weaknesses, to worry very much about someone else’s deficiencies.

This whole paragraph is just you trying to insinuate that people are too focused on their weaknesses to see them as prophets. Again, a bit disingenuous/assuming. I’m comfortable w/ prophets having weaknesses. They’re just men. The scriptures clearly state they have weaknesses. I’ve never said anything otherwise. What I’m not comfortable w/ are statements like

“they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets”

But then the only concrete examples you can come up w/ are “personal revelation” and ONE reference to Moses you never even quoted them bringing up. Again, kinda disingenuous. You’re insinuating I have a personal problem w/ them to shift focus from the fact that they’ve never actually explicitly taught the personal revelation = being a prophet thing.

Can you quote one thing I’ve said that is untrue or defamatory about them?

No, I am saying I don’t think they need to have said what you want them to have said.

And yes, they are trying like mad to teach us to (and how to) receive revelation. Check out the January 2021 Liahona, if you don’t believe me.

I get it that that is not enough for you (all), but I think that is your problem, not theirs.

I read this article. At no point does it equate personal revelation to being a prophet.

It talks about growing into revelation. It's basically boilerplate teachings on getting promptings from the HG. It never mentions, implies, or alludes to this making one a prophet.

That doesn't mean what Nelson is saying isn't true, or that it's a bad article, he just never actually says, implies or suggests that receiving or growing into revelation makes you a prophet- therefore he never actually teaches the principle that receiving revelation = being a prophet.

He actually juxtaposes the position of those reading the article against what he refers to as the "words of living prophets" which is clear from context means the 15 GAs at the head of the LDS church. He encourages those reading the article to follow the words of these prophets. These are the only people referred to as prophets in the entirety of the article other than JS.

If you want to believe receiving promptings from the HG makes one a prophet, you can, but attributing the idea to something Nelson taught is disrespectful of his teachings. If you really believe he is a prophet, shouldn't you hold his words in a little more regard?

It's clear from the temple recommend questions that what you're arguing is not in-line w/ church policy as well. The only prophets, seers, and revelators recognized by the LDS church are the current 15- any other person is not sustained or recognized as a prophet. If you really do believe that those questions are inspired by God, shouldn't you treat them w/ more respect?

The entirety of your argument rests on you loosely 'inferring' it from scattered teachings of the 15 (without being able to cite an explicit example of the actual teaching). When repeatedly asked to provide an explicit citation, you simply reference an entire article or manual, thereby putting the burden on someone else to verify the thing you're claiming. In other words, you don't even bother to back up the thing you're claiming except very tenuously - you expect other people to take time out of their lives to verify what you're saying instead of doing it yourself.

Clearly, your mind is made up against him and no amount of debating this is going to change either of our minds. As they say, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” I’ve got my hands full clearing out my own motes and beams.

Moving on!

[heliocentr1c]

Again, I find your response disingenuous. I have no idea why you understand the principle so well bc I’m not you. I have no way of knowing what your life is like.

However, when you make statements like “they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets” but then the only example you can come up w/ is how you’re pretty sure it’s in the OT teaching manual...it comes off as, well, disingenuous. It’s hyperbolic in nature. LDS culture is becoming more and lore hyperbolic.

If you believe them teaching the principe of personal revelation means they’re teaching people how to be prophets, you can obviously believe this. But others may have come to another conclusion. If you could provide a quotation of them explaining or referencing a scripture about how personal revelation means you’re a prophet, that would obviously be very helpful.




This whole paragraph is just you trying to insinuate that people are too focused on their weaknesses to see them as prophets. Again, a bit disingenuous/assuming. I’m comfortable w/ prophets having weaknesses. They’re just men. The scriptures clearly state they have weaknesses. I’ve never said anything otherwise. What I’m not comfortable w/ are statements like

“they are doing all in their power to teach us how to be prophets”

But then the only concrete examples you can come up w/ are “personal revelation” and ONE reference to Moses you never even quoted them bringing up. Again, kinda disingenuous. You’re insinuating I have a personal problem w/ them to shift focus from the fact that they’ve never actually explicitly taught the personal revelation = being a prophet thing.

Can you quote one thing I’ve said that is untrue or defamatory about them?

No, I am saying I don’t think they need to have said what you want them to have said.

And yes, they are trying like mad to teach us to (and how to) receive revelation. Check out the January 2021 Liahona, if you don’t believe me.

I get it that that is not enough for you (all), but I think that is your problem, not theirs.

I read this article. At no point does it equate personal revelation to being a prophet.

It talks about growing into revelation. It's basically boilerplate teachings on getting promptings from the HG. It never mentions, implies, or alludes to this making one a prophet.

That doesn't mean what Nelson is saying isn't true, or that it's a bad article, he just never actually says, implies or suggests that receiving or growing into revelation makes you a prophet- therefore he never actually teaches the principle that receiving revelation = being a prophet.

He actually juxtaposes the position of those reading the article against what he refers to as the "words of living prophets" which is clear from context means the 15 GAs at the head of the LDS church. He encourages those reading the article to follow the words of these prophets. These are the only people referred to as prophets in the entirety of the article other than JS.

If you want to believe receiving promptings from the HG makes one a prophet, you can, but attributing the idea to something Nelson taught is disrespectful of his teachings. If you really believe he is a prophet, shouldn't you hold his words in a little more regard?

It's clear from the temple recommend questions that what you're arguing is not in-line w/ church policy as well. The only prophets, seers, and revelators recognized by the LDS church are the current 15- any other person is not sustained or recognized as a prophet. If you really do believe that those questions are inspired by God, shouldn't you treat them w/ more respect?

The entirety of your argument rests on you loosely 'inferring' it from scattered teachings of the 15 (without being able to cite an explicit example of the actual teaching). When repeatedly asked to provide an explicit citation, you simply reference an entire article or manual, thereby putting the burden on someone else to verify the thing you're claiming. In other words, you don't even bother to back up the thing you're claiming except very tenuously - you expect other people to take time out of their lives to verify what you're saying instead of doing it yourself.

Clearly, your mind is made up against him and no amount of debating this is going to change either of our minds. As they say, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” I’ve got my hands full clearing out my own motes and beams.

Moving on!

I'm not really trying to debate it w/ you, I'm just pointing out a few verifiable facts. Namely, that the article you cited doesn't mention anything about member-prophets or members becoming prophets, apart from the 15 who are also members.

[Allison]

No, I am saying I don’t think they need to have said what you want them to have said.

And yes, they are trying like mad to teach us to (and how to) receive revelation. Check out the January 2021 Liahona, if you don’t believe me.

I get it that that is not enough for you (all), but I think that is your problem, not theirs.

I read this article. At no point does it equate personal revelation to being a prophet.

It talks about growing into revelation. It's basically boilerplate teachings on getting promptings from the HG. It never mentions, implies, or alludes to this making one a prophet.

That doesn't mean what Nelson is saying isn't true, or that it's a bad article, he just never actually says, implies or suggests that receiving or growing into revelation makes you a prophet- therefore he never actually teaches the principle that receiving revelation = being a prophet.

He actually juxtaposes the position of those reading the article against what he refers to as the "words of living prophets" which is clear from context means the 15 GAs at the head of the LDS church. He encourages those reading the article to follow the words of these prophets. These are the only people referred to as prophets in the entirety of the article other than JS.

If you want to believe receiving promptings from the HG makes one a prophet, you can, but attributing the idea to something Nelson taught is disrespectful of his teachings. If you really believe he is a prophet, shouldn't you hold his words in a little more regard?

It's clear from the temple recommend questions that what you're arguing is not in-line w/ church policy as well. The only prophets, seers, and revelators recognized by the LDS church are the current 15- any other person is not sustained or recognized as a prophet. If you really do believe that those questions are inspired by God, shouldn't you treat them w/ more respect?

The entirety of your argument rests on you loosely 'inferring' it from scattered teachings of the 15 (without being able to cite an explicit example of the actual teaching). When repeatedly asked to provide an explicit citation, you simply reference an entire article or manual, thereby putting the burden on someone else to verify the thing you're claiming. In other words, you don't even bother to back up the thing you're claiming except very tenuously - you expect other people to take time out of their lives to verify what you're saying instead of doing it yourself.

Clearly, your mind is made up against him and no amount of debating this is going to change either of our minds. As they say, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” I’ve got my hands full clearing out my own motes and beams.

Moving on!

I'm not really trying to debate it w/ you, I'm just pointing out a few verifiable facts. Namely, that the article you cited doesn't mention anything about member-prophets or members becoming prophets, apart from the 15 who are also members.

Well, I cited and entire magazine which was basically all about learning to Hear Him. I’m sorry if Moses’ idea of member-prophets was not spelled out, but I think that’s always the idea. Imagine if we all were that inspired!