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

[_Valorius]

No claims absent evidence, testing and transparency are reliable.

Religious claims lack these, collectively.

So when I say I am a brave defender of women and children, here on the forum, where no one can see my physical features or see how I behave in public,
You would say that because on the forum there is absence of evidence and testing and . . . "transparency" (is that like ethereal hyperdimensionality?) . . . I am a lily-livered, womanizing child-molester!?

I believe your standard for determining what is "reliable" needs a little work if you are to function normally in mixed company.

And when I say, the Bible explains my religious beliefs, and as a result I believe I am to love my wife and raise my children with a knowledge of God, you would call me a transparently unreliable mysogynist!?

Either that, or a man's word is sufficiently reliable on its own.
A man should be granted the civility of trust until he has proven himself unworthy of it.
To start from a position that a man's word is unreliable because a certain hearer just doesn't agree with what it is he believes (religion) or is saying, would prove destructive to social intercourse, to say nothing of commercial, military, pedagogical, medical, judicial, and conversational discourse.

Anyway, you haven't presented evidence for your contention
that no claims are reliable unless the claimant carries bags of evidence, testing, and 'transparency'(!?).
So your contention is transparently unreliable.

[_Valorius]

Further, the LDS is a very late comer to the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517.

The Protestant Reformation refers to individuals and groups who were Catholics who attempted to change select practices and doctrines of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. When changes were not effected, these individuals and groups conducted church services and missions according to the changes they thought the Mother Church should have adopted. The Protestant Reformation became a Protesting Separation.

The Mormon Church rose from one man's efforts in the 1800s. He had not been Catholic. In fact anti-Catholicism was the norm where he lived, and anti-Catholicism was an element in sermons he heard while growing up.

The LDS is not a late-comer to the Protestant Reformation. It was never a part of the Protestant Reformation. Since the birth of Joseph Smith, the attempts to reform the Catholic Church have been much fewer, usually much less bellicose, and less successful in starting huge new national denominations, than those people of the true Catholic Protestant Reformation, which unique and specific era we may now say has ended.

The LDS church, if anything, is part of a movement in which arose many new denominations and churches in the mid-1800s, and has continued off and on in various countries ever since then.

[_JAK]

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?

Tidejwe,

Have you not in a sense answered your own question here?

In addition, what role does imagination play?

You state:
So tell me...apparently this revelation was either of man or the devil.

Your question assumes God and assumes the devil.

Since there is no clear, transparent evidence for either, why couldn’t any claimed revelation simply be made up? If it’s a forecast in the short term, we may observe if it’s correct. On the other hand if it’s a forecast well beyond the lifetime of anyone hearing the “revelation,” it’s irrelevant. No one living is going to have the evidence the “revelation” was accurate.

It seems to me the term as it is generally used (revelation) is couched in superstition or imagination. While there are evidences which point to a conclusion, “revelation” as it seems to be used relies on mythical notions absent evidence.

JAK

[_JAK]

No claims absent evidence, testing and transparency are reliable.

Religious claims lack these, collectively.

So when I say I am a brave defender of women and children, here on the forum, where no one can see my physical features or see how I behave in public,
You would say that because on the forum there is absence of evidence and testing and . . . "transparency" (is that like ethereal hyperdimensionality?) . . . I am a lily-livered, womanizing child-molester!?

I believe your standard for determining what is "reliable" needs a little work if you are to function normally in mixed company.

And when I say, the Bible explains my religious beliefs, and as a result I believe I am to love my wife and raise my children with a knowledge of God, you would call me a transparently unreliable mysogynist!?

Either that, or a man's word is sufficiently reliable on its own.
A man should be granted the civility of trust until he has proven himself unworthy of it.
To start from a position that a man's word is unreliable because a certain hearer just doesn't agree with what it is he believes (religion) or is saying, would prove destructive to social intercourse, to say nothing of commercial, military, pedagogical, medical, judicial, and conversational discourse.

Anyway, you haven't presented evidence for your contention
that no claims are reliable unless the claimant carries bags of evidence, testing, and 'transparency'(!?).
So your contention is transparently unreliable.

Valorius,

A short answer here.

You’re engaged in the classic straw man attack. You misrepresent my statement. Then you attack the straw man you made as if it were something which I stated.

Your example:
So when I say I am a brave defender of women and children, here on the forum, where no one can see my physical features or see how I behave in public,
You would say that because on the forum there is absence of evidence and testing and . . . "transparency" (is that like ethereal hyperdimensionality?) . . . I am a lily-livered, womanizing child-molester!?

I did not make any such comment, characterization, or illustration.

This “forum” can be documented. Assuming a post of your is not deleted, it can be read by all who come here. Hence, your statements are evidence. Of course we cannot see if you’re lying from the perspective of this form only. We only know what you put on the screen. And that is evidence of your views.

You have made no refutation for the principle:

No claims absent evidence, testing and transparency are reliable.

Straw man attacks are not refutation.

Valorius:
I believe your standard for determining what is "reliable" needs a little work if you are to function normally in mixed company.

Still no refutation of the principle. What does “mixed company” have to do with the principle of evidence supporting claims? Nothing. It’s an irrelevant comment to the issue.

Valorius:
And when I say, the Bible explains my religious beliefs, and as a result I believe I am to love my wife and raise my children with a knowledge of God, you would call me a transparently unreliable mysogynist!?

No, I would call you religious and likely a victim of religious indoctrination. But, I would need more evidence to conclude the latter. I would charge you with further straw man constructions. There is nothing of my language in your assertion about what I would say.

Valorius:
Either that, or a man's word is sufficiently reliable on its own.
A man should be granted the civility of trust until he has proven himself unworthy of it.

A man’s word (singular man) is not sufficiently reliable on its own. Any “man” can claim anything he likes. Absent evidence for the claim, the claim should be rejected. Clearly by your words here, you have proven yourself untrustworthy in discussion.

Construction language and attributing it to another and implying someone said that which he did not say makes a person who does that untrustworthy.

The principle which I stated, AND which has in no way been refuted by you remains:

No claims absent evidence, testing and transparency are reliable.

Valorius:
To start from a position that a man's word is unreliable because a certain hearer just doesn't agree with what it is he believes (religion) or is saying, would prove destructive to social intercourse, to say nothing of commercial, military, pedagogical, medical, judicial, and conversational discourse.

In this very post, you have proven you are unreliable. You misquote and misrepresent then attack that straw man (you manufactured) as if someone else had made the case you present.

I agree with your statement that one may start giving someone the benefit of the doubt with regard to anything they might say. However, if he/she begins to make claims, it’s appropriate to ask for the evidence supporting the claims.

He who makes claims has the burden of proof for those claims. That’s the same principle as it applies to individuals who make claims.

Valorius:
Anyway, you haven't presented evidence for your contention
that no claims are reliable unless the claimant carries bags of evidence, testing, and 'transparency'(!?).
So your contention is transparently unreliable.

Another straw man attack. “Bags of evidence” is your phrase not mine. While it’s an attempt at put down it fails.

Here is why.

Simple, easily verified claims require little evidence.
Example: (Living in the Midwest) if I say: there are ants in my yard, I have made a claim.

Another person might skeptically say, Are you sure? Let’s see some evidence. In turn, I take them into my yard and we find ants together. (We have previously agreed tacitly on just what an ant is.) After finding some or many ants, which the skeptical person had asked for evidence about, we confirm my claim. We could bring in a hundred people, but it’s not likely to be required for the claim I made.

Now here is another principle for you, Valorius.

The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to confirm that claim.

I’m happy to engage in discussion with you, Valorius. However, it’s incumbent on us to be accurate and truthful about what has been said.

You will notice here that I have quoted you verbatim and responded to your comments.

It’s a principle of honest debate. To construct straw man scenarios and say that’s what another person said is not honest debate.

JAK

[_JAK]

Further, the LDS is a very late comer to the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517.

The Protestant Reformation refers to individuals and groups who were Catholics who attempted to change select practices and doctrines of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. When changes were not effected, these individuals and groups conducted church services and missions according to the changes they thought the Mother Church should have adopted. The Protestant Reformation became a Protesting Separation.

The Mormon Church rose from one man's efforts in the 1800s. He had not been Catholic. In fact anti-Catholicism was the norm where he lived, and anti-Catholicism was an element in sermons he heard while growing up.

The LDS is not a late-comer to the Protestant Reformation. It was never a part of the Protestant Reformation. Since the birth of Joseph Smith, the attempts to reform the Catholic Church have been much fewer, usually much less bellicose, and less successful in starting huge new national denominations, than those people of the true Catholic Protestant Reformation, which unique and specific era we may now say has ended.

The LDS church, if anything, is part of a movement in which arose many new denominations and churches in the mid-1800s, and has continued off and on in various countries ever since then.

Valorius,

You are misinformed about the extent of the Protestant Reformation which began (not ended) with Martin Luther in 1517.

The evolution of religious doctrines continues to the present day as part of reform and the Protestant Reformation.

The division at the time of Martin Luther resulted in the formation of what we presently have in Lutheran churches. There are many of them today. Other Protestant denominations resulted in further splits and start-ups.

For a quick review of that:

See Protestantism

Many groups have formed following the schism resulting from that begun in 1517.

Valorius stated:
The Protestant Reformation refers to individuals and groups who were Catholics who attempted to change select practices and doctrines of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. When changes were not effected, these individuals and groups conducted church services and missions according to the changes they thought the Mother Church should have adopted. The Protestant Reformation became a Protesting Separation.

Some incorrect analysis. The Methodists were never Roman Catholics. The Baptists were never Roman Catholic. Those and many others including Mormons were much farther removed from the period 1517. That makes the emergence of the Mormon organization in the 1800s one which can be historically (objective historians doing the studies) linked to the initial Protestant Reformation. While Mormons like to rewrite history to suit their own bias and doctrine, the Mormon view of history is couched and trapped by Mormon dogma.

That time (1517) was the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Groups which split from other groups which split from still other groups following the lead of Martin Luther are all part of the Protestant Reformation continued.

It’s correct that Luther wanted reforms which the Church of Rome was unwilling to grant. Granting what Luther wanted would have weakened the authority of the Pope. However, that authority was weakened anyhow as the invention of the printing press gave more and more people access to the Bible and more and more opportunity to have further divisions as a result of differing interpretations on what the Bible said.

Valorius stated:
The Mormon Church rose from one man's efforts in the 1800s. He had not been Catholic. In fact anti-Catholicism was the norm where he lived, and anti-Catholicism was an element in sermons he heard while growing up.

That’s incorrect. There were many involved in the emergence and evolution of the Mormon Church. J. Smith came from a Methodist family, and he used the resources of others in his attempt to reform or start up a new denomination.

Protestantism is a general category of Christians who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church or one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Protestantism includes more than a thousand demoninations, sects, and cults that differ greatly or slightly from one another. Hence, Protestantism is inclusive of those religious groups and political movements which began in Europe in 1517. The word Protestant comes from the Latin word protestans, which means one who protests.

The term was first used in 1529 at a special Diet (an assembly) in Speyer Germany. At that Diet, several german leaders protested an attempt of the Roman Catholic Church to limit the practice of Lutheranism, the earliest of the Protest movements. The leaders became know as Protestants because of their protest. The term soon became all inclusive of the Western Christians who had left the Roman Catholic Church.

Most Protestants live in Europe and North America. A Protestant denomination is the state religion of a number of nations including Denmark, Great Britain, Norway, and Sweden. Protestantism has influenced the cultural, political, and social history of these and other countries.

And so the Mormon Church is indeed a late comer to the Protestant Reformation contrary to your perception. Mormons do not write world history, they write doctrine and dogma protective of their religious peculiarity. That is not really unlike other religious groups in the wake of the initial Protestant Reformation.

Hence your statement here is incorrect as you state:

Valorius states:
The LDS is not a late-comer to the Protestant Reformation. It was never a part of the Protestant Reformation.

Mormonism got its start with Joseph Smith (1805-44), the unschooled son of a New York Methodist farmer. He made a wide variety of claims of a religious nature. His environmental background was out of a Protestant denomination previously established and from which Smith came (a family of 9 children).

The term Mormon can be applied to various groups as detailed by the website here.

I should like to see evidence for your next claim. However, by the 1800 and certainly by the mid to late 1800s, the denominational splits were diminishing. Unless you can show evidence for a causal link to your statement, it’s unreliable as implied cause.

Valorius states:
Since the birth of Joseph Smith, the attempts to reform the Catholic Church have been much fewer, usually much less bellicose, and less successful in starting huge new national denominations, than those people of the true Catholic Protestant Reformation, which unique and specific era we may now say has ended.

The evolution of doctrinal shift in religion has hardly ended. And to imply that the emergence of the Mormon church had influence on “fewer” “attempts to reform the Catholic Church” lacks merit.

The fact that B follows A does not mean that A caused B in the contest of your implicit claim here.

There are numerous independent churches today which have been start-ups without financial or other direct connection to another Protestant group.

Valorius states:
The LDS church, if anything, is part of a movement in which arose many new denominations and churches in the mid-1800s, and has continued off and on in various countries ever since then.

The LDS organization is one of many emerging, evolving religious groups that claim to be different than other religious groups. The “movement” is that of the Protestant Reformation begun in 1517. The movement did not begin with the Mormon organization.

JAK

[_JAK]

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.

Fine statement, Moniker for those within the LDS God box assuming there are not in fact multiple LDS God boxes.

Those who imagine they speak for God are unlikely to “keep it to yourself…” Such a high defies keeping to one’s self. EVERYONE must hear the GREAT TRUTH.

The problem lies in that many claim to speak for God. And since they say greatly or even slightly different things, they “speak” differently.

Conclusion: No one who makes such a claim or claims to be a prophet if not THE prophet, has credibility. To use a musical metaphor, none is in the same key.

Now if we expand that beyond the narrow perspective on only LDS “prophets,” we have a plethora of claimants who “speak for God.”

Therefore, we should be skeptical at the least if not reject any such “claimants” who say they speak for God.

Each of these various individuals rely on truth by assertion.

Such claims for “truth” are unreliable.

By contrast, we find enormous consensus in science. We find NO such consensus in religion or even in the narrow confines of Christianity.

The thrust of extrapolation of your comment here is that:

No claims absent evidence, testing and transparency are reliable.

Religious claims lack these, collectively.

JAK

I counter your claim JAK. I've made the claim that I've seen a God and I don't run around declaring things and expecting obedience.

Nehor,

Just what do you think you are countering in this statement:

Nehor states:
I counter your claim JAK. I've made the claim that I've seen a God and I don't run around declaring things and expecting obedience.

What did I state previously regarding this?

From my post:
Those who imagine they speak for God are unlikely to “keep it to yourself…” Such a high defies keeping to one’s self. EVERYONE must hear the GREAT TRUTH.

Is that the part to which you make reference? If not quote me exactly and respond. If this is your reference. Read it closely.

Do you see in that the word “unlikely”? On the other hand, you have indeed promoted your claim: "I have seen God."

Now where in my words quote them did I state that you “run around declaring things and expecting obedience”??

Read the words on the page, Nehor.

You consistently put up straw man arguments. You misrepresent then challenge your own misrepresentation as if someone actually had said what you misrepresent that he/she said.

You also failed entirely to respond to a number of posters who asked you for the specifics regarding your claim: “I have seen God.”

Why so shy about such a bold claim? Humm.

You were asked if you shook hands. You were asked for appearances. As I recall, you declined any of the particulars in those questions.

Hence, your claim lacks merit. You offer no evidence for your claim. Claims absent evidence should be disregarded. You have never refuted that principle regarding claims.

JAK

[_Wintersfootsteps]

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.

I think we (the Church) pass all your tests, except for the one you are in error on. Paying tithing doesn't promise more money. Just blessings. There are many blessings which are not measured in money.

Chairty,

You have offered nothing to support the quid pro quo assertion you make here.

The most strident of atheists could be described as having been “blessed.” Jews consider themselves “blessed” in a variety of ways. Many Muslims consider themselves “blessed” and by God.

Your computer works just as does mine. It’s applied science, not a blessing in any religious sense. So what’s “a blessing.” How do you define that?

You’re wallowing in your own dogma quagmire. There are many churches. And the notion that there is “the church” is self-deceptive and clearly out of touch with the reality of documented religious organizations, churches.

Further, the LDS is a very late comer to the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517.

JAK

Wow JAK, it's like you climbed into my brain and typed exactly what I was thinking... well done.

[_Wintersfootsteps]

Common sense should apply, and many religious organizations ask that you ignore it.

As a Mormon who is just learning the truth about the history of the church, my common sense tells me that it's not the church for me... I was never told about the issues with Prophets speaking about things like quakers on the moon or a certain race not being able to receive the priesthood due to the color of their skin. Common sense tells me that the men who made those comments were probably not speaking directly to God, ever.

[_bcspace]

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

Lacking the HG? When it's also published in an official work of the Church.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor,

Just what do you think you are countering in this statement:

Nehor states:
I counter your claim JAK. I've made the claim that I've seen a God and I don't run around declaring things and expecting obedience.

What did I state previously regarding this?

From my post:
Those who imagine they speak for God are unlikely to “keep it to yourself…” Such a high defies keeping to one’s self. EVERYONE must hear the GREAT TRUTH.

Is that the part to which you make reference? If not quote me exactly and respond. If this is your reference. Read it closely.

Do you see in that the word “unlikely”? On the other hand, you have indeed promoted your claim: "I have seen God."

Now where in my words quote them did I state that you “run around declaring things and expecting obedience”??

Read the words on the page, Nehor.

You consistently put up straw man arguments. You misrepresent then challenge your own misrepresentation as if someone actually had said what you misrepresent that he/she said.

You also failed entirely to respond to a number of posters who asked you for the specifics regarding your claim: “I have seen God.”

Why so shy about such a bold claim? Humm.

You were asked if you shook hands. You were asked for appearances. As I recall, you declined any of the particulars in those questions.

Hence, your claim lacks merit. You offer no evidence for your claim. Claims absent evidence should be disregarded. You have never refuted that principle regarding claims.

JAK

First you worry that those who speak about encountering God are unlikely to keep it to themselves and imply they'll stir up trouble and demand obedience.

Then, I make the claim and do no such thing and you demand more information to substantiate the claim.

Which way do you want it?

P.S. Still waiting response to mental state question I've asked in multiple threads.