What if people today lived in the days of the Bible?

[LDSChristian]

I think it would be interesting. Today we hear people say "There's no need for a living prophet. There's no such thing as a modern-day prophet."

The best thing the Bible talks about in regards to this is obviously the Pharisees who believed in dead prophets but not in living prophets or Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

How do you think traditionalists of today would be if they lived in the times of those such as Isaiah and Jeremiah since they were the modern-day living prophets of their time? Do you think they'd believe or do you think they'd still have the "no need" attitude?

[pam]

Interesting question. I look forward to the responses.

[Wingnut]

A prophet is scorned in his own land.

Every prophet has been ignored and persecuted by some group of the people he served, no matter the time period.

[LDSChristian]

Another interesting thing is traditionalists deny modern-day prophets yet they still believe what the Bible tells of the 2 prophets that will be slain before the 2nd Coming. Sounds more like a "it's right because it agrees with me" situation.

[Traveler]

I think it would be interesting. Today we hear people say "There's no need for a living prophet. There's no such thing as a modern-day prophet."

The best thing the Bible talks about in regards to this is obviously the Pharisees who believed in dead prophets but not in living prophets or Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

How do you think traditionalists of today would be if they lived in the times of those such as Isaiah and Jeremiah since they were the modern-day living prophets of their time? Do you think they'd believe or do you think they'd still have the "no need" attitude?

Eccl. 1:9 tells us that things do not really change. The things we see happening today actually happened in old times or happened already before. This means that what you are thinking is actual a spiritual principle. As one reads, in particular the Gospel of John, we will see a conflict between Jesus (who is the Messiah or Christ) and the Pharisees and Scribes (that are anti to Christ or antichrist). In essences the documentation of these events are prophesies of the antichrist of the last days. I will list some of these arguments that I believe are the primary arguments used against the LDS today:

1. The teachings are contrary to scripture (or law)

2. The doctrine teaches men can make themselves into G-d

3. Not Christian - Jesus was accused of not being a Jew (Samaritan)

4. Is in league with Satan (have a devil)

5. Authority in tradition and scriptures - verses someone sent by G-d

6. Teaching of a living prophets are not needed because traditions are of G-d and are more reliable.

7. There was no apostasy in current traditions.

The Traveler

Edited January 17, 2011 by Traveler

[LDSChristian]

Eccl. 1:9 tells us that things do not really change. The things we see happening today actually happened in old times or happened already before. This means that what you are thinking is actual a spiritual principle. As one reads, in particular the Gospel of John, we will see a conflict between Jesus (who is the Messiah or Christ) and the Pharisees and Scribes (that are anti to Christ or antichrist). In essences the documentation of these events are prophesies of the antichrist of the last days. I will list some of these arguments that I believe are the primary arguments used against the LDS today:

1. The teachings are contrary to scripture (or law)

2. The doctrine teaches men can make themselves into G-d

3. Not Christian - Jesus was accused of not being a Jew (Samaritan)

4. Is in league with Satan (have a devil)

5. Authority in tradition and scriptures - verses someone sent by G-d

6. Teaching of a living prophets are not needed because traditions are of G-d and are more reliable.

The Traveler

I'm on yahoo answers a lot looking at and answering questions people have about the church and I definitely see those excuses people make. My favorite thing is "The Bible and Book of Mormon contradict each other" and yet they'll give no reason why they think that or any kind of verses they think supports their belief.

"The teachings are contrary to scripture"

And what they really say is our teachings are contrary to traditional teachings of man's interpretation, not what the scriptures actually say.

"The doctrine teaches men can make themselves into G-d"

Just as the Bible teaches we'll be joint-heirs with Christ and will be glorified with Him.

"Not Christian - Jesus was accused of not being a Jew (Samaritan)"

I honestly haven't heard the 2nd part of that before.

"Is in league with Satan (have a devil)"

Yet traditionalists don't try the spirits.

"Authority in tradition and scriptures - verses someone sent by G-d"

Yet their traditions have no authority. In fact the Bible teaches to leave the ways of tradition behind because tradition teaches wrong.

"Teaching of a living prophets are not needed because traditions are of G-d and are more reliable."

And traditionalists don't remember the Pharisees had the same attitude and they were called hypocrites by Christ Himself. It's bad when the Son of God calls someone a name.

Yea I've heard those, minus one, before and they're old if anything.

[LDSChristian]

I just asked this question on Yahoo Answers and someone put:

"Irrelevant.

We don't"

[hordak]

I think it would be interesting. Today we hear people say "There's no need for a living prophet. There's no such thing as a modern-day prophet."

The best thing the Bible talks about in regards to this is obviously the Pharisees who believed in dead prophets but not in living prophets or Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

How do you think traditionalists of today would be if they lived in the times of those such as Isaiah and Jeremiah since they were the modern-day living prophets of their time? Do you think they'd believe or do you think they'd still have the "no need" attitude?

I would think most would follow. Most who i have met who take issue with a modern day Prophets don't do so because they are against the idea(from an authority stand point), but because Christ came, because of the scriptures, because of the changing authority line/ time gap etc.

The "no need" attitude is based on having scripture.

So in biblical time, without a personal copy of the scriptures i think they would follow.

[Guest]

I would think most would follow. Most who i have met who take issue with a modern day Prophets don't do so because they are against the idea(from an authority stand point), but because Christ came, because of the scriptures, because of the changing authority line/ time gap etc.

The "no need" attitude is based on having scripture.

So in biblical time, without a personal copy of the scriptures i think they would follow.

Yes, this.

The reason why Christians today do not follow a prophet anymore is because they all believe that everything was fulfilled in Christ and that the scriptures is complete.

In the days of old, they were still awaiting the Christ and they sure didn't believe that the scriptures were already fulfilled. So, if they do not recognize Christ, it is not because they don't believe He is coming. They just didn't expect Him to come in such humility.

[LDSChristian]

I would think most would follow. Most who i have met who take issue with a modern day Prophets don't do so because they are against the idea(from an authority stand point), but because Christ came, because of the scriptures, because of the changing authority line/ time gap etc.

The "no need" attitude is based on having scripture.

So in biblical time, without a personal copy of the scriptures i think they would follow.

Obviously there was scripture: the brass plates. Although Nephi ended up with them, the plates were still in one time in Jerusalem.

[hordak]

Obviously there was scripture: the brass plates. Although Nephi ended up with them, the plates were still in one time in Jerusalem.

The people didn't have them. In a mass produced bible way. I don't think we have them now. As the Book of Mormon covers the new world, not the old.

[mrmarklin]

I think it would be interesting. Today we hear people say "There's no need for a living prophet. There's no such thing as a modern-day prophet."

The best thing the Bible talks about in regards to this is obviously the Pharisees who believed in dead prophets but not in living prophets or Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

How do you think traditionalists of today would be if they lived in the times of those such as Isaiah and Jeremiah since they were the modern-day living prophets of their time? Do you think they'd believe or do you think they'd still have the "no need" attitude?

People are the same. People didn't believe then, and its no way that people today would believe if they were somehow magically transported back in time.

[slamjet]

As a kid I posed this question to my dad:

"If I lived when Jesus lived, would I believe in him?" (I did have my moments)

To which he answered:

"If you believe in him now, you would have believed in him then."

I never really felt it needed to go much further than that.

[Mute]

I think it would be interesting. Today we hear people say "There's no need for a living prophet. There's no such thing as a modern-day prophet."

The best thing the Bible talks about in regards to this is obviously the Pharisees who believed in dead prophets but not in living prophets or Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

How do you think traditionalists of today would be if they lived in the times of those such as Isaiah and Jeremiah since they were the modern-day living prophets of their time? Do you think they'd believe or do you think they'd still have the "no need" attitude?

I think we would be hearing "Break out the stones and hold my coat!" quite a lot.

[LDSChristian]

The people didn't have them. In a mass produced bible way. I don't think we have them now. As the Book of Mormon covers the new world, not the old.

Whether the scriptures were mass produced or not isn't the issue. Lehi knew of them just as Laban had them and I'm sure Laban's followers knew of the brass plates as well so it wouldn't be a surprise if others knew about the plates.

[hordak]

Whether the scriptures were mass produced or not isn't the issue. Lehi knew of them just as Laban had them and I'm sure Laban's followers knew of the brass plates as well so it wouldn't be a surprise if others knew about the plates.

Sure it is. You asked what would traditionalist do today if they lived in bible times. Would they follow the prophet or have a "no need" attitude?

The "no need" attitude comes from a belief that Christ fulfilled all, which they get from their mass produced scriptures.

Let me give you an analogy. And a poor and oversimplified one at that.

I have a 95 olds cutlass. I never take it to a mechanic. I have a Haynes manual (bible) that breaks everything down, so i can fix it myself.

If it was December 1994 and my car was a brand new model i would take it in for every hickup. Because the manual was not written.

I don't avoid modern mechanics because i'm against mechanics and therefor would not listen to them in the past. I avoid them today because i don't think they are necessary today.(for my model of car).

[Blackmarch]

I think it would be interesting. Today we hear people say "There's no need for a living prophet. There's no such thing as a modern-day prophet."

The best thing the Bible talks about in regards to this is obviously the Pharisees who believed in dead prophets but not in living prophets or Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

How do you think traditionalists of today would be if they lived in the times of those such as Isaiah and Jeremiah since they were the modern-day living prophets of their time? Do you think they'd believe or do you think they'd still have the "no need" attitude?

CHristianity would be in the same place as the jews were at the time of Christ, and the general attitudes would be about the same.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

I think it would be interesting. Today we hear people say "There's no need for a living prophet. There's no such thing as a modern-day prophet."

The best thing the Bible talks about in regards to this is obviously the Pharisees who believed in dead prophets but not in living prophets or Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

How do you think traditionalists of today would be if they lived in the times of those such as Isaiah and Jeremiah since they were the modern-day living prophets of their time? Do you think they'd believe or do you think they'd still have the "no need" attitude?

What I have been always taught is that no matter the time period we are in our reaction to the truth of the Gospel is always the same.

So it is assumed (but cannot be proven) that we the Latter-day Saints, if we lived in the meridian of time we would of accepted Christ and followed after him.

The same can be assumed (but never proven) that those who reject the Modern Prophets would of rejected the Ancient Prophets and even of rejected Christ. Just like the Pharisees that swore they would of accepted the Prophets there ancestors rejected and killed, but rejected Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

One's personality is based no in the time of there existence but the depth of there character so it is logical to think that those who reject the modern prophets would of rejected Jesus and the ancient prophets.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Sure it is. You asked what would traditionalist do today if they lived in bible times. Would they follow the prophet or have a "no need" attitude?

The "no need" attitude comes from a belief that Christ fulfilled all, which they get from their mass produced scriptures.

Let me give you an analogy. And a poor and oversimplified one at that.

I have a 95 olds cutlass. I never take it to a mechanic. I have a Haynes manual (bible) that breaks everything down, so i can fix it myself.

If it was December 1994 and my car was a brand new model i would take it in for every hickup. Because the manual was not written.

I don't avoid modern mechanics because i'm against mechanics and therefor would not listen to them in the past. I avoid them today because i don't think they are necessary today.(for my model of car).

The funny thing is this is the same excuse that the Pharisees used to persecute and murder Christ and his Apostles!

False teachings are false teachings, it doesn't matter if they started in the 4th Century AD (when man decided God can't reveal to us anything ever again without any scripture to support the belief) or in 32AD (when the Pharisees said that Christ was a blasphemer under the Law of Moses and needed to be killed even though the Law of Moses foretold his birth and ministry).

[Dravin]

How one is raised matters a lot (but certainly isn't deterministic). Which is what this hinges on. If someone was raised in a Pharisaical household I would expect them be more likely to conclude the same things as the Pharisee household. Likewise I imagine if one was living during the reign of King Mosiah things would be different. Look at it this way, if Joseph Smith had been alive in 11100s Italy would he have been conflicted over religion like he was? Or would everyone being Catholic and possibly not having easy access to the Bible (or even the ability to read, he was a Farmer's son) have made it so the question never entered his mind?

I don't think you can divorce people from the circumstances they were raised and developed in and expect them to necessarily react the same even if by some metric who they are at their core somehow was the stay the same.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Dravin

[Traveler]

...

"Not Christian - Jesus was accused of not being a Jew (Samaritan)"

I honestly haven't heard the 2nd part of that before.

"Is in league with Satan (have a devil)"

Yet traditionalists don't try the spirits.

...

See John 8:48 -

Also take a look at Eccl. 1:9 and Isaiah 46:10 - we learn that everything that we can see happening G-d has declared it in scripture. So all we have to do is match what is being said and find the parallel in scripture.

I would also point out one other thing. One of the names by which Jesus is known in eternity before the Father is "Advocate". One of the names by which Satan is known before the Father is "Accuser". Jesus said that the best way to identify who in reality someone worships (Jesus or Satan) is by their fruits (works - words). Thus someone that worships Satan (the Accuser) will do the works of Satan or the works of accusation. And someone that worships Jesus (the Advocate) will do the works of Jesus or the works of an advocate.

It would be well for all to ask of themselves - In whose name do they do their works?

The Traveler

[LDSChristian]

The people didn't have them. In a mass produced bible way. I don't think we have them now. As the Book of Mormon covers the new world, not the old.

Actually they did have scriptures. Look up John 10:35. If there were no scriptures how could scriptures have been written?

Also, 2 Timothy 3

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If they didn't have scriptures why was it written they had scriptures?

[Dravin]

Actually they did have scriptures. Look up John 10:35. If there were no scriptures how could scriptures have been written?

Also, 2 Timothy 3

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If they didn't have scriptures why was it written they had scriptures?

The people didn't have them in a mass produced way != did not exist.