JayUtah, I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a God. I want to know how the believers are able to tell who is a real prophet, tell which ones are deluded and which ones are faking it.
jab,
In other words: Since you postulate that there is no deity, then it is impossible for anyone to be a prophet for deity; therefore, anyone who says he/she prophesies is faking it and those who believe that person are deluded.
That about sum it up in your view?
No.
I want to know how a believer is able to tell which prophets are real prophets; which prophets are not really prophets but are merely deluded into thinking that they are (which does not necessarily mean that the believers are deluded, merely the “prophets”); and which ones are frauds. Whether the believers themselves are deluded or not is a separate issue.
It’s curiosity about human behavior, nothing more. (And nothing perplexes me more than certain human behaviors, like firm belief in things that have yet to be shown to exist.)
Actually, it does. See below.
Apparently what you really mean by this is “What prophets the believer believes to be real.” That is already answered by faith: the believer believes the prophet to be real.
Since you already state that there’s no god, then it’s impossible, in your belief system, for there to be a real prophet.
[quote[which prophets are not really prophets but are merely deluded into thinking that they are (which does not necessarily mean that the believers are deluded, merely the “prophets”); and which ones are frauds. Whether the believers themselves are deluded or not is a separate issue.[/quote]
Actually, this whole comment of yours is baloney. You have already established, in your belief system, that there is no god and therefore any believer, to include any prophet, is deluded.
Actually, the only curiosity here is why are you doing what is damn close to trolling!
Ah, my mistake. I did not know this. You presented arguments which bear a striking resemblance to those used by mainstream Christians to attempt to demonstrate flaws in Mormonism. This led me to believe you were arguing from that point of view. Thanks for clarifying this.
A believer accepts someone’s claim for prophetic ability as a matter of faith. There is no foolproof empirical test.
For those such as St. Paul who are widely believed among Christians to have been divinely inspired, there is no consensus or generally accepted system of determination on which of his statements ought to be considered divinely inspired and which ought to be considered his opinions. Mormons adopt a similar approach to Joseph Smith and their other leaders past and present.
What one accepts as authoritative often is decided by social factors, tradition, or what one chooses to love and hate at any particular time. These differences account for the fragmentation of the Christian faith, and likely of other faiths.
Well, jab, I already answered your question above. At least as far as LDS are concerned, we depend on the influence of the Holy Ghost to help us determine the truthfulness of a prophet. The same goes for the existence of God. It ain’t empirical scientific evidence, it’s very personal, but it’s worked quite well for me.
Using what criteria?
Convince me that I’m wrong and that there is a God and that He uses prophets as messengers and I will believe.
It’s entirely possible that there is a God, but He has never used a prophet at all. This is one of the tenets of deism (from http://www.m-w.com):
I think that picking certain individuals to act as messengers (prophets) would qualify as interference with the laws of the universe, because God would not be able to communicate with anyone except by supernatural means.
What is your definition of trolling? It may not be the same as mine.
I frequently make the mistake of assuming people already know this about me. I apologize.
What difference does it make? After all, you have already established that “there is no god.” Therefore there is no real prophet ACCORDING TO YOU AND THUS ANYONE WHO BELIEVES SOMEONE IS A PROPHET IS DELUDED!
Trolling, as has been explained many times on this board before, can be one of a number of things. One of those things is the particular path you’ve chosen to follow in this thread.
Oh, and in case you wondered why I yelled above: IT’S BECAUSE YOU’RE ACTING LIKE YOU DON’T HAVE A BRAIN AND I BELIEVE YOU REALLY DO SO YELLING JUST MIGHT MAKE IT INTO YOUR SKULL.
After all, I used to think you were a smart poster. This thread dissuaded me of at least one of my delusions.
Even a genius can be deluded. There is not necessarily any shame in being deluded.
Monty, what I think jab is asking is (please correct me if I’m wrong): How would a believer (such as yourself) know a prophet when you see one? As opposed to a false prophet or other instrument of Satan.
The fact that jab may think prophecy impossible is irrelevent here, as are your rabid accusations of trolling.
First off: One guess as to where you can cram your remark about rabid.
Next: Jab is trolling. It’s pretty simple: first, the question of “how do you know a real prophet?” Followed by: There’s no god. Therefore, no real prophet.
It’s classic troll.
I left out:
Which is really odd, because trolling just aint jab.
But Monty, you still haven’t answered the question then. I think it is valid to ask what makes a believer believe a prophet (in any religion) is for real.
Your defensive attitude is unnecessary. And – it should go without saying – my use of the word “rabid” refers to your attack on jab, not your religious views.
Can’t we all just get along? This just seems like a monumental misunderstanding.
Monty appears to think jab is trolling, and thus doesn’t want to get drawn into an argument (see avoiding contention in debate).
Jab’s question is a legitimate one, but the way it was placed in this thread left the impression (to some) that it was a troll in the sense of “You can’t convince me you’re right - care to try?” It may have been more in the spirit of “I truly don’t understand this - can you help me?”
All that aside, the question has indeed been answered! Monty said
This is a complete answer, and as unsatisfying as some of us would find it to be, it can’t really be elaborated upon. So, jab asks how this faith is arrived at, and Monty interprets that question as an attack on his faith.
This faith can be criticized, but only in the sense that anyone’s beliefs can be criticized. If someone believes without evidence, he is satisified by this explanation, and is probably unable to explain that faith to anyone who requires evidence.
I think you two just need to agree to disagree - Monty has answered the question, but it is plain that that answer will never satisfy jab. There is nothing further for Monty to say, for in his mind he has answered the question. In jab’s mind, Monty’s answer was only the barest hint at an answer.
Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Heres what I found onprophets
http://www.mrm.org/articles/false-prophets.html
This one might be helpful also
http://www.carm.org/lds/ldschristian.htm
Not “issues”, Jodi.More like “truth”.
“By their fruits yee shall know them.” TheHoly Spirit produces love, kindness, patience.In other words, some LDS don’t act very Godly.
I’ve discussed religion with other faiths; none have been so vicious as Mormons in reponse.
Bullshit, VANILLA. You have personal reasons to dislike Mormonism that have nothing to do with the validity of the religion, and you unfortunately aired your issues before the entire board, so many of us were made aware of them whether we wanted to be or not. The bias of the links you post is self-evident – the sites speak for themselves in their fundamentalism and their denial that Mormonism is even a Christian religion.
IIRC, you belong to a fairly fundamentalist church. Unless you imagine your faith is not subject to attack, then I’d lay off your sniping at the faiths of others. You know, that whole “people in glass houses” thing. You have no right to tell me, the LDS, or anyone else what “the truth” is where matters of faith are concerned.
You seem like a pretty nice person except where this issue is concerned. Then you turn petty and passive-aggressive, attacking a lot of very good people because you happened to have a bad personal experience with some that were not so good. I’m not Mormon, but I wish you’d just lay off.
Actually, yes. We all can get along. Well, except for vanilla who is obviously still being a thorn just to be a thorn.
I don’t believe it’s a misunderstanding.
In reality, I am stunned because what jab has done here is trolling. And that’s just not jab. What’s gotten into you?
That’s exactly the case.
Then a better choice of words would’ve been in order on jab’s part. As it is, though, he’s already stipulated that (a) there is no deity (as far as he’s concerned), therefore (b) anyone claiming to have prophetic ability is a liar (oh, and vanilla: that includes Moses, so you might want to rethink your opinion of jab’s comments in this thread), so © the “problem” he wants the LDS to explain to his satisfaction can’t be explained to such satisfaction. That’s because the issue is that the LDS consider Joseph Smith Jr to have been a prophet.
Not only was I providing the answer from an LDS perspective, but also from the perspective of any faith which holds to prophesy in it at any time.
That’s because it’s what’s known as complete.
Actually, jab didn’t ask how that faith was arrived at. He asked by what method one tested God. Since jab has already stipulated that there is no deity, then any test is a waste of time, and any positive result of a test proves the test is wrong.
And, as I’ve said on this board before, I do not discount the possibility that I am willfully deluding myself.
[quote]
I think you two just need to agree to disagree - Monty has answered the question, but it is plain that that answer will never satisfy jab. There is nothing further for Monty to say, for in his mind he has answered the question. In jab’s mind, Monty’s answer was only the barest hint at an answer.
Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong./QUOTE]
No, you are 100% correct. In addition: jab appears to be the peevish child who asks about the parkway/driveway issue.
Oh, and vanilla: you might want to remember that jab thinks your religion is a crock also.