Do We Need a Prophet?

[omega0401]

Anytime you read a story like this one...(Presbyterians drop the Gay Ban), it makes you realized how important it is to have a Prophet of God upon the earth. Once a Prophet speaks in the name of the Lord the questions are over and the wheat and the tares separate.

The Presbyterians will be fighting each other again.

Update: Since posting this story I read another one in the newspaper about how the Methodist ministers in California are trying to marry homosexuals in their church.

Edited July 19, 2008 by omega0401

[SkyWishes]

Omega stories like this always make me feel so happy that we do have a prophet. A similiar scenario is over here in England the Church of England is being divided by Females being alowed the same privliges as male members of the church, e.g being able to be priests. I feel so blessed for President Monson and I know he is a man of God =)

[omega0401]

...so happy that we do have a prophet.

And I am too. While other churches are arguing over whether they should or shouldn't marry homosexuals we have a prophet of God to guide us. The need for a prophet of God is so great in these last days.

While other church members are arguing over this topic, the Lord's church remains, as always, true to all that He taught and commanded of us.

The church moves forward on a straight and narrow course to eternal life, never deviating. The Lord has told us He will never allow a prophet to lead us astray. That gives me a lot of comfort, trust, and assurance. Pres. Monson is a wonderful, loving, and caring, prophet. His life has exemplified that.

A church without a prophet of God is like a boat without a rudder whose members gets tossed in every direction not knowing for sure what to believe. It reminds me of one of our hymns.... We thank thee o God for a prophet to guide us in these latter-days.....

Edited July 19, 2008 by omega0401

[Connie]

I have heard of many LDS people who believe it is only a matter of time before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follows suit. My response to them, "Don't hold your breath."

[MorningStar]

Oh yeah, there's no way the church will ever do that.

[Hemidakota]

I have heard of many LDS people who believe it is only a matter of time before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follows suit. My response to them, "Don't hold your breath."

This is what the brethren mean in being responsible in fighting against such nonsense.

I do concur with your statement ["Don't hold your breath."].

[prisonchaplain]

As much as I admire your loyalty to your church's prophet, I'd suggest that an honest, and unbiased reading of the Bible could get you the same result, on this issue. :-)

[Connie]

Yes, and it's too bad that so many religions who profess to believe the Bible are buckling under social pressure.

[Islander]

As much as I admire your loyalty to your church's prophet, I'd suggest that an honest, and unbiased reading of the Bible could get you the same result, on this issue. :-)

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.

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.

[Moksha]

As much as I admire your loyalty to your church's prophet, I'd suggest that an honest, and unbiased reading of the Bible could get you the same result, on this issue. :-)

Are there not new challenges to be faced that were never conceived of or mentioned in the Bible? Surely a living Prophet could give relevant guidance in this case, could he not?

[prisonchaplain]

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]

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]

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.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Islander

[Bookmeister]

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

[Hemidakota]

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]

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]

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.

[Hemidakota]

That would be a half-hazard educational guess using today's standard as yesterdays work occupation.