A common idea I have seen expressed in and out of the church is that of the infallibility of the prophets. More specific is the idea that whatever the prophets say can be construed as doctrine if not just authoritative. This belief of course has led to all sorts of traditions and anomalistic doctrines. Things like the Adam-God theory, all indigenous Americans being descended from Lehi, etc.
I came across an interesting scripture last night in 2 Peter 1:20–21.
No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
It seems even in the New Testament that prophets need to be moved by the Holy Ghost for their words to be prophetic.
I guess the challenge then is determining when they are moved by the Spirit.
Popularity: 1% [?]
I keep telling people, some sort of a ‘I am now speaking for God’ hat would make the whole process much easier…
Maybe something in a royal purple.
Yes, the hat would be nice. But what would be the sport in that? Perhaps the challenge is to make conclusions that are as accurate as possible in the absence of the purple hat. He who makes the most accurate conclusions, wins!
“He who makes the most accurate conclusions, wins!”
Given a high number of contradicting conclusions given in large volumes, anyone can claim to be a prophet.
Yes, anyone could claim that, but only the people who are correct will win.
My point is that any person who claims both sides of an issue is always correct. They just forget to mention the fact that they predicted the other side…
Ah, I see.