How do you know WHEN the "prophet" speaks for God?

[_Tidejwe]

FYI I'm new here, this is my first post in this group, though I've been constantly debating LDS history/doctrine for hrs every day for years. I've been referred here and look forward to contributing in discussions. If it matters, I am an active LDS member who served a mission, holds a temple recommend, etc...though I admit to having some very NON-TRADITIONAL views of Mormonism

**********
Example 1 of X:

Even Joseph Smith couldn't tell the difference between Revelation from God, and revelation from Satan:

Brother Hyrum thought they should not wait any longer on Martin Harris, and that the money [to print the Book of Mormon] should be raised in some other way. Brother Hyrum was vexed with Brother Martin, and thought they should get the money by some means outside of him, and not let him have anything to do with the publication of the Book, or receiving any of the profits thereof if any profits should accrue. He was wrong in thus judging Bro. Martin, because he was doing all he could toward selling his land.

Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon.

Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada.
Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man; and some revelations are of the devil."

History of the church 2:279; TPJS 189; Unpublished revelations Vol. II Part 41; An Address to All Believers in Christ, 3032

**********

There are other accounts of this same story, but inevitably it still amounts to the prophet receiving a "REVELATION" telling people to go do something and the revelation being a false prophecy. Joseph said the Lord told him that if they went to Toronto that they would sell the copyright there (a prophecy about what would happen). When they came back empty handed, the Lord gave a new revelation that inferred the previous revelation didn't come from God.

So tell me...apparently this revelation was either of man or the devil. What concerns me is that if Joseph was so easily fooled and couldn't tell the difference between a revelation from God and a revelation from a different source...how does ANYONE know which revelations to trust of themselves or let alone of "the prophet's"? The only reason we know THIS revelation wasn't from God is because it was testable (either it would or wouldn't come true). How many others do people accept that might not have been from God because there's no real way to test them?

[_ludwigm]

I've sent an half a hour before to the "exmormon@yahoogroups.com " :

If one prophet says anything "actually" is not definitive.
It is only his private opinion.
Please, don't forget this.

If it becomes true, it is the word of God.
If it doesn't, it is private opinion.
Can't You stupid beings differentiate?

[Guest]

Well... I hate to pipe up here. But the prophet issue is actually disconcerting to me. I used to read about some that believed themselves to be prophets of God. The problem of course came not so much that these men (can't recall reading about a female) believed they communicated with God, but that they convinced others of this ability. Now, those that followed the prophet believed that this was their direct link to God. They followed with little hesitation and some repugnant deeds were done in the name of the prophet/God. Now, certainly, I'm not suggesting that the LDS prophet(s) will have LDS go out and about to attack people. Yet, when those that follow a prophet fully accept that everything is from God (even those things that are later revealed to have not been from God) then you have people handing over their own ability to reason to another fallible human.

I suggest that it best if one communicates directly with God, if they feel so compelled. And please, if you get revelations just keep it to yourself. Especially if it deals with illegal activities.

What in the world am I rambling about?

Oh, I suppose I'm just trying to say -- You do NOT know when the prophet speaks for God. Ever.

[_asbestosman]

Hi Tidejwe, was I the one who referred you here?

I can vouch for Tidejwe. He really does hold unorthodox views of Mormonism. In fact, I hear that his dad told him to stop talking about the SLC mall when he was with family over the Christmas week.

Anyhow, on topic: good question. In fact, I just talked to my wife about the question of when the prophet is speaking as prophet. She believes it is always. I said that God probably lets them do their own things at times and then brought up the black priesthood ban. She thought it was still of God, but our fault for not being ready.

[_Blixa]

... She thought it was still of God, but our fault for not being ready.

Just a quick question abman...who is the "our" that your wife thought was not ready?

[_harmony]

I can vouch for Tidejwe. He really does hold unorthodox views of Mormonism. In fact, I hear that his dad told him to stop talking about the SLC mall when he was with family over the Christmas week.

I'd love to hear this story. Maybe another thread, before I hijack this one (as I have heretofore done... several times).

[_asbestosman]

Just a quick question abman...who is the "our" that your wife thought was not ready?

The church, the nation, and maybe the blacks too. She wasn't too sure. She just knew it was God leading the prophet in the ban and the removal thereof.

[_The Nehor]

Well... I hate to pipe up here. But the prophet issue is actually disconcerting to me. I used to have a morbid fascination with the crime library (I became increasingly paranoid and gave myself the heebie jeebies often) online and read about some that believed themselves to be prophets of God. The problem of course came not so much that these men (can't recall reading about a female) believed they communicated with God, but that they convinced others of this ability. Now, those that followed the prophet believed that this was their direct link to God. They followed with little hesitation and some repugnant deeds were done in the name of the prophet/God. Now, certainly, I'm not suggesting that the LDS prophet(s) will have LDS go out and about to attack people. Yet, when those that follow a prophet fully accept that everything is from God (even those things that are later revealed to have not been from God) then you have people handing over their own ability to reason to another fallible human.

I suggest that it best if one communicates directly with God, if they feel so compelled. And please, if you get revelations just keep it to yourself. Especially if it deals with illegal activities.

What in the world am I rambling about?

Oh, I suppose I'm just trying to say -- You do NOT know when the prophet speaks for God. Ever.

Maybe we should dust off that whole Holy Ghost thing.

[_Blixa]

Just a quick question abman...who is the "our" that your wife thought was not ready?

The church, the nation, and maybe the blacks too. She wasn't too sure. She just knew it was God leading the prophet in the ban and the removal thereof.

Oh.

[_Valorius]

Well, I kind of like relying on the principles of

Common sense
Compatibility with known scientific principles
Compatibility with historical evidence (Did people 1400 years ago make boats that could cross the Atlantic? Did "many" prophets come to Jerusalem to tell them they would be led into captivity "if they didn't repent"?)
Compatibility with linguistic evidence (Was "Sam" a name given to children in ancient Israel?)
Cause-effect experiments. (When people pay tithing, do they really all get more money?)

If what the prophet (actually, a "seer" not a prophet?) says contradicts these principles, he is speaking his own opinion. If they are in agreement, however, then he isn't a Mormon.