Where is their 'continuing revelation?' Their 'prophets' can't prophesy. . .

[Christian]

How long has it been since the latest 'revelation' was added to the d&c?

Their 'continuing revelation' seems to have been 'discontinued!!!!' :rolleyes:

So why do they FALSELY CLAIM they have 'continuing revelation?'

[Erundur]

How long has it been since the latest 'revelation' was added to the d&c?
Less than 37 years.


So why do they FALSELY CLAIM they have 'continuing revelation?'
Before you can ask why we falsely do something, you first need to demonstrate that we falsely do that thing.

[Phoenix]

Less than 37 years.
Before you can ask why we falsely do something, you first need to demonstrate that we falsely do that thing.

that is a good response. what if the prophet samuel gave his first prophecy 30 years after he had been called by the Lord to be a prophet? would the people be right to brand him a false prophet or say "He's not a prophet!" for the first 29 of those 30 years? And then what if, after giving that first prophecy, he didn't give another one for 30 more years? would the people be right to brand him a false prophet or say "He's not a prophet!" for the 29 years that the Lord didn't want him to prophesy anything?

That seems like what some anti-mormons are doing.

[Christian]

Less than 37 years.


So why do they FALSELY CLAIM they have 'continuing revelation?'

Before you can ask why we falsely do something, you first need to demonstrate that we falsely do that thing.

And EXACTLY WHAT was that 'revelation' that was given in 1998 or so? HMMMMM?

And THAT WAS HOW MANY 'GENERATIONS' of "prophets" ago? HOW MANY OF YOUR so-called "prophets" have come and gone without the ability to prophesy at all?

[Christian]

phoenix posted:

what if the prophet samuel gave his first prophecy 30 years after he had been called by the Lord to be a prophet? would the people be right to brand him a false prophet or say "He's not a prophet!" for the first 29 of those 30 years? And then what if, after giving that first prophecy, he didn't give another one for 30 more years? would the people be right to brand him a false prophet or say "He's not a prophet!" for the 29 years that the Lord didn't want him to prophesy anything?

That seems like what some anti-mormons are doing.

Naah. . .we're merely pointing out that those you CLAIM were called by the Lord to be prophets SIMPLY REMAIN UNABLE TO DO THE *** AT ALL.

HOW MANY OF YOUR "PROPHETS" HAVE COME AND GONE WITHOUT EVER PROPHESYING EVEN ONCE?

How can you claim they are 'prophets' if they can't prophesy?

[Christian]

[QUOTE=Christian;163865]phoenix posted:

what if the prophet samuel gave his first prophecy 30 years after he had been called by the Lord to be a prophet? would the people be right to brand him a false prophet or say "He's not a prophet!" for the first 29 of those 30 years? And then what if, after giving that first prophecy, he didn't give another one for 30 more years? would the people be right to brand him a false prophet or say "He's not a prophet!" for the 29 years that the Lord didn't want him to prophesy anything?

That seems like what some anti-mormons are doing.

Naah. . .we're merely pointing out that those you CLAIM were called by the Lord to be prophets SIMPLY REMAIN UNABLE TO DO THE *** AT ALL.

HOW MANY OF YOUR "PROPHETS" HAVE COME AND GONE WITHOUT EVER PROPHESYING EVEN ONCE?

How can you claim they are 'prophets' if they can't prophesy?

BTW, Samuel DID prophesy. Many of your 'prophets' are also 'yo-yo experts' if you call someone who CANNOT DO SOMETHING a person who does. . .

[Christian]

Less than 37 years.


Before you can ask why we falsely do something, you first need to demonstrate that we falsely do that thing.

According to https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/138?lang=eng, your mormon webpage says that the last entry was made back in October 1918, NOT 1998 (37 years ago).

SORRY BUT NO CIGAR FOR YOU!

[Phoenix]

. . .we're merely pointing out that those you CLAIM were called by the Lord to be prophets SIMPLY REMAIN UNABLE TO DO THE *** AT ALL.
that's what you would have said about samuel the prophet, during every year that he didn't make a prophecy. why do you demand that God give prophecies to His prophets on YOUR timetable? Does God really have to give them when YOU think He should? Or does He get to decide that on His own, without your dictating to Him?

let's examine your logic a little more: you are saying that if a prophet doesn't publicly announce a prophecy as quickly or frequently as you like, then it mean he is UNABLE to do the *** at all. how good is your logic?

if the bible says that Jesus' disciples will pick up deadly snakes without being hurt, and YOU haven't done so by now, that proves that you are UNABLE to do it. and of course THAT means that you are a false disciple.

NOW do you see how bad your logic was?

what you need to understand is that prophesying future events is not the only *** of a prophet. it's not even the most important *** of a prophet. it is not the litmus test of whether God chose the man to be a prophet.

the main *** of a prophet of God is to tell His people, or sometimes tell the world, things that God wants told. a lot of the time it is proclaiming His commandments. or telling the people they need to repent and start obeying Him. or leading the people away from their enemies or into battle against their enemies, like moses and samuel did, or lamenting over the wickedness of people like jeremiah or samuel or david did. those ***s aren't predicting the future.


HOW MANY OF YOUR "PROPHETS" HAVE COME AND GONE WITHOUT EVER PROPHESYING EVEN ONCE?
maybe none. after all, if each of them, speaking as the prophet, said something like "if God's chosen people will repent of their sins and resolve to keep His commandments, they will avoid being cursed, and they will be blessed" then that's a prophecy.

the following article must have "prophesied" in advance your criticism, since it was written back when Pres. Hinckley was still alive:

Some critics say that Latter-day Saint prophets aren't really "prophets" because they don't prophesy by foretelling unknown events. They commonly issue challenges such as, "If Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet, tell me one event that he's prophesied."

here is the rest of the article:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Nature_of_prophets/Latter-day_prophets_don%27t_prophesy

[Erundur]

And EXACTLY WHAT was that 'revelation' that was given in 1998 or so? HMMMMM?
Um, 37 years ago was 1978.


And THAT WAS HOW MANY 'GENERATIONS' of "prophets" ago?
You'll have to define what a generation of prophets is first before I can answer that.


HOW MANY OF YOUR so-called "prophets" have come and gone without the ability to prophesy at all?
Zero.

[Erundur]

According to https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/138?lang=eng, your mormon webpage says that the last entry was made back in October 1918
Try this one: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng


NOT 1998 (37 years ago).
Math is hard, isn't it?

[Christian]

phoenix posted:
that's what you would have said about samuel the prophet, during every year that he didn't make a prophecy. why do you demand that God give prophecies to His prophets on YOUR timetable? Does God really have to give them when YOU think He should? Or does He get to decide that on His own, without your dictating to Him?

So all of those 'prophets' who have come and gone, DIED and STILL cannot EVER 'prophesy' were really supposedly 'prophets,' even though they can NEVER DO THE *** since they have DIED?

Sorry, but SAMUEL was a prophet. . .HE DID the ***. YOUR guys DID NOT DO THE ***. . .EVER!

let's examine your logic a little more: you are saying that if a prophet doesn't publicly announce a prophecy as quickly or frequently as you like, then it mean he is UNABLE to do the *** at all. how good is your logic?

Don't try to tell me MY logic, since you DON'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO GRASP even the most SIMPLE LOGIC. . .that people who CANNOT DO THE ***, then DIE, are NOT 'prophets' at all. And YOUR so-called 'prophets' have NOT DONE ANY SUCH ***, and have died and NEvER WILL.

if the bible says that Jesus' disciples will pick up deadly snakes without being hurt, and YOU haven't done so by now, that proves that you are UNABLE to do it. and of course THAT means that you are a false disciple.

NOW do you see how bad your logic was?

That was YOUR manufctured 'strawman,' and had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH MY LOGIC.

what you need to understand is that prophesying future events is not the only *** of a prophet. it's not even the most important *** of a prophet. it is not the litmus test of whether God chose the man to be a prophet.

the main *** of a prophet of God is to tell His people, or sometimes tell the world, things that God wants told. a lot of the time it is proclaiming His commandments. or telling the people they need to repent and start obeying Him. or leading the people away from their enemies or into battle against their enemies, like moses and samuel did, or lamenting over the wickedness of people like jeremiah or samuel or david did. those ***s aren't predicting the future.

So BY YOUR "LOGIC" my own Baptist Pastor is a 'prophet?'

EQUAL OF COURSE to (AND FAR BETTER THAN) your own prophet who cannot prophesy at all.

WHY should ANYONE consider all those mormon leaders who have come and gone without EVER GIVING ONE PROPHESY (since November 1918, d&c 138) to be a 'prophet' at all?

AND WHERE IS your 'continuing reveleation since 1918?

No new revelations from your so-called 'prophets,' clearly.

[Phoenix]

So all of those 'prophets' who have come and gone, DIED and STILL cannot EVER 'prophesy' were really supposedly 'prophets,'

if you are still muttering your "if they didn't predict the future they can't have been a prophet" mantra, I'd remind you that God is allowed to call a prophet to tell the people to repent, and to be their leader, even during a decade when God has no predictions that He feels He needs to reveal to mankind.

You don't have the authority to tell God that He needs to publicly predict, through His prophet, a future event at least once a decade, or once every 5 decades, or whatever your personal rule is. He will have His prophet prophesy a future event when the following conditions are met:

1. When there is future event that actually needs to be revealed, that He hasn't already revealed.
2. When He sees evidence that the people have enough faith and righteousness, or maybe enough wickedness, that they deserve to know of the future event.

If He doesn't have any future events to reveal right now, He will not have the prophet reveal them now. And if He knows that the people would reject the prophecy, maybe He won't have the prophet announce it.


Sorry, but SAMUEL was a prophet. . .HE DID the ***.
You believe that now, in hindsight. People aren't so willing to accept a prophet while he is still alive, and while predictions he made, if he made them, won't come to p*** for another 200 or 800 years. Also, if the prophet is from their own nation or state or community, the people often reject him. "How can HE be a prophet? He is just a regular guy. My dad went to school with him."
Tell me you wouldn't have been THAT kind of naysayer if you'd lived in his days, in his country, and when Isaiah hadn't made any prophecies yet. You'd be saying "Come on, let's see some predictions, or you're no prophet! I don't care that you CLAIM that God appointed you to be a prophet!" Or when Isaiah was making prophecies about events that wouldn't occur for another 600 years. You'd have been among those saying "NONE of these has come true yet, so he's a false prophet!"
And you would have been saying that to your dying day, if the first of Isaiah's prophecies hadn't come to p*** by your dying day.