Do We Need a Prophet?

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by Islander

Apparently, and according to lots of purportedly very smart people with all kinds of degrees and years of study, what the bible says is not what you and I think. The fact is that there is a lot of confusion and ambiguity.

Oh there is not! Modernist, who cannot believe God says what He says how He says it in the Bible, went back into history and literary criticism, and any other field of academia they could, to conjur up enough of "the wisdom of men," to remake the Bible in their own image. Were there any serious Christian institutions declaring "It's okay to be gay," prior to the 1960s?

So a prophet is indeed needed. God is a God of order and truth and light are at the core of His essence. When a prophet says "thus saith the Lord..." the argument is over. Those that nevertheless want to contend know of surety in what side of the argument they find themselves. And there will always be those that want to argue with the prophet. Often times, they are the so called "smart ones."

But again, apparently you seem to have no need for a prophet.

My suggestion is that this issue is not a good case to argue for a prophet. Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Southern Baptists, the lion's share of those denominations that are grappling with this issue (all movements in decline, btw)--they/we know what the Bible says. This issue is a major issue, only in those relatively few, relatively small (globally) denominations with a significant liberal/modernist faction.

IMHO, the question is not whether we need one, but whether Joseph Smith was one, and whether his revelations are from God or not. If he was, then God knew we needed one, and gave him to us. If not, then ...

[drjme]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Oh there is not! Modernist, who cannot believe God says what He says how He says it in the Bible, went back into history and literary criticism, and any other field of academia they could, to conjur up enough of "the wisdom of men," to remake the Bible in their own image. Were there any serious Christian institutions declaring "It's okay to be gay," prior to the 1960s?



My suggestion is that this issue is not a good case to argue for a prophet. Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Southern Baptists, the lion's share of those denominations that are grappling with this issue (all movements in decline, btw)--they/we know what the Bible says. This issue is a major issue, only in those relatively few, relatively small (globally) denominations with a significant liberal/modernist faction.

IMHO, the question is not whether we need one, but whether Joseph Smith was one, and whether his revelations are from God or not. If he was, then God knew we needed one, and gave him to us. If not, then ...

Individually as true Christians we can discern that Homosexuality is against Gods Laws, the difference with having the prophet is that we can be assured that the Church -as an institution- will uphold this because the prophet speaks and directs it overall.
I'm sure many in those Churches that are giving in to 'popular' interpretations, with regards to homosexuality, are not happy with it. You would be suprised that approximately 10% of Christians read the bible, the rest rely on their leaders interpretations. How disastrous could this be if they follow a leader that says it's fine! For those who are LDS that may wander and be unsure on the topic, a declaration by the first presidency puts all issues to rest. For the rest that read the bible, it just confirms what they already know.

[jimuk]

"the question is not whether we need one, but whether Joseph Smith was one, and whether his revelations are from God or not. If he was, then God knew we needed one, and gave him to us."

We do need one, and Joseph smith was one. This is what we believe or we wouldent be members of the "church OF Jesus christ of latter day saints" Authority must come from god to act in his name, and if there is no prophet then nobdy has the right to act in gods name.
Which would make ALL churches wrong.
We have a living prophet on the earth today, why is it so hard for other denominations to accept that, Dont they want one, very much the same as the jews denying that the saviour had come when we know he has. Dont other churches want a prophet on the earth, it seems not.
It is such a simple realism, prey about it with true intent and really seeking the truth, dont be afraid to want to find out the truth, why do people keep asking members of the church, why are they afraid to ask their heavenly father, this is realy who you should be asking. Members such as myself are/can be susceptible to not being good talkers and may inadvertently describe things in a way to cause anti feelings.
So please ask heavenly father, he will put you straight.

[Hemidakota]

It is always a requirement to have a living prophet and leadership that represents the Kingdom of GOD upon the Earth or any earths for that matter. Long there is an influence of evil minions, there is a need.

[MarginOfError]

Who was the prophet when Deborah was judge?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

Who was the prophet when Deborah was judge?

Gideon was called as a prophet at that time.

Man has always rationalized and attempted to second-guess God. MOre than 400 years passed Malachi to the coming of the Savior. Because Jesus was from a very poor family, he had no rabinical training, and he interpreted the Torah in a completely different way they called him a heretic, sinner, crazy, that he was possessed and ultimately crucified Him. Out of of the "smart people in the whole Israel only Rabi Gamalieil allowed for the possibility that indeed Jesus could be sent by God. It goes to show.

[Bookmeister]

You know, if there wasn't a living prophet, I could just go to any old church.

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by Islander

Gideon was called as a prophet at that time.

Man has always rationalized and attempted to second-guess God. MOre than 400 years passed Malachi to the coming of the Savior. Because Jesus was from a very poor family, he had no rabinical training, and he interpreted the Torah in a completely different way they called him a heretic, sinner, crazy, that he was possessed and ultimately crucified Him. Out of of the "smart people in the whole Israel only Rabi Gamalieil allowed for the possibility that indeed Jesus could be sent by God. It goes to show.

There is no support to that statement that the Savior came from a povered family,

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

Who was the prophet when Deborah was judge?

Already answered but some tidbits here:

By all accounts, the best known prophetess is Deborah. She assumed leadership of Israel's military, judicial, and religious institutions at a crucial time and literally saved the young nation from sinking into oblivion. The Israelites, under Joshua, had forced their way into Canaan but had not gained full control of the country, and many years following that initial conquest were marked by skirmishes and an ebbing of national identity. The scriptures point out that because the Israelites were in danger of merging with the surrounding heathen tribes, God allowed the king of Canaan to afflict them, to demand tribute and to scourge them with raids led by his great general Sisera. During this period of oppression, Deborah served as Israel's judge.

It is entirely in keeping with the character of Mosaic institutions that the nation's chief magistrate was a woman. Deborah's appointment is announced in scripture rather matter-of-factly, and she is portrayed as an inspired judge who is well respected. The palm tree in front of her house, where she sits to give counsel, is noted as a national landmark. When she sends for the leader of the armies, he comes, listens, and obeys.

Of her personal life, less is said. It is recorded that she is the wife of Lapidoth, and she identifies herself as a mother. Her accomplishments cover a wide spectrum. In addition to being a wife, a mother, a judge, and a prophetess, she wrote poetry. Her verse ranks today as some of the finest recorded, whether read in the original Hebrew or in translation. From her poetry we know she was gentle, introspective, and intellectual.

When her nation was disheartened, its leadership faltering, Deborah summoned Israel's most capable military leader from his home in Kedesh. She had come to know it was God's will that Israel be set free—not simply that the next battle be won that they might have a few months' respite from their oppressors. The nation was to be truly liberated. She believed it could be done, but it did not occur to her to actually lead the rebellion. Instead, she sent for the most likely man, Barak, and told him that if he would raise an army of ten thousand, she would promise him, as God's mouthpiece, that he would be victorious.

Barak answered, "If thou wilt go with me, then I go; but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go." Some interpret that answer to mean that he was afraid. I think not. Rather, I believe that Barak sensed the spiritual insight Deborah possessed and wanted her with him and his army. I think his answer shows him to be a man of supreme moral courage. Without a quibble, he would raise an army; but he knew what he lacked, and he knew that Deborah, a woman, possessed what was needed.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

There is no support to that statement that the Savior came from a povered family,

The Greek word describing Joseph's trade was "tekton" which included a builder, mason, and one skilled in wood and metal working. It is likely that Joseph and his son Jesus were "handymen" of sorts. Fixing and repairing an assortment of things like fences, wells, roofs, etc. In the north of Israel those that lived there tended to their own land or fished for a living. Fishing required a franchise and tax arrangements with the rules which required money. Joseph no longer tended to his land (inheritance) which implies they no longer had possession of it.

Contrary to what happens in the modern world, as recently as 100 years in most of our own country, you'd hire yourself out as a last resort to make money. That implied that yo had no tools, means or ability to support yourself any other way off the land as it was customary. It is thus very likely that the family of the Savior was of very little economic means.