Is Thomas S. Monson A Prophet Of God?

[John Ping Pong]

The belief that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God seems required of faithful Latter-day Saints.

I am wondering what that belief rests upon.

The argument I hear most frequently is that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and therefore the leader of the church he organized must therefore also be a prophet of God.

My studies of Joseph Smith tend to lead me in the other direction.

Joseph Smith was a wholly different creature than Thomas Monson.

Joseph Smith revealed, translated and prophesied in profusion.

While I recognize we cannot expect every subsequent leader of the LDS Church to be a Joseph Smith, it does strike me that I am not aware of President Monson doing any of the things that Joseph Smith did make me consider him a prophet of God.

Where are the revelations, translations and prophecies? I am aware of none. Although President Monson is doubtless a good person, is there not more required in order to be considered a prophet of God?

So my question is this, for those who do believe Thomas Monson to be a prophet of God--On what does your belief rest?

Is it based on what he has done or said, or merely on the position he holds?

[DBMormon]

I believe Paul of Tarsus to be a prophet of God... what great prophesies has he declared that came to fruition. We should both be able to see that not all who are seen as prophets in the scriptures prophesied. Even in the Book of Mormon many of the authors did little more then teach the doctrine of Christ.

To me President Monson being a prophet means this. ...... If the Lord is going to make a pronouncement to the world today, he will do so through President Monson. He doesn't even have to recieve a revelation in this life if the Lord has nothing spectacular to reveal at this time.

[CV75]

So my question is this, for those who do believe Thomas Monson to be a prophet of God--On what does your belief rest?

For me, my belief is based on his succession from Joseph Smith. My faith is based on my experience with sustaining him as President.

[KevinG]

Joseph Smith restored the Gospel in this dispensation requiring a whole lot of revelation and translation.

Thomas S. Monson presides over a church of 14000000 around the world which requires a whole lot of revelation and very little translation.

I would not have wanted to be led across the prairie by Gordon Hinckley or had Brigham Young responsible for bringing the church into the media age.

Prophets are called and prepared for their time- not someone else's.

[Darren10]

While I recognize we cannot expect every subsequent leader of the LDS Church to be a Joseph Smith, it does strike me that I am not aware of President Monson doing any of the things that Joseph Smith did make me consider him a prophet of God.

What made Joseph Smith a prophet of God was that God called him to be His prophet. That holds true for also Thomas Monson. These two prophet's works may be different but both were called by the exact same divine power and authority to be prophets.

[Lightbearer]

The belief that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God seems required of faithful Latter-day Saints.

I am wondering what that belief rests upon.

The argument I hear most frequently is that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and therefore the leader of the church he organized must therefore also be a prophet of God.

My studies of Joseph Smith tend to lead me in the other direction.

Joseph Smith was a wholly different creature than Thomas Monson.

Joseph Smith revealed, translated and prophesied in profusion.

While I recognize we cannot expect every subsequent leader of the LDS Church to be a Joseph Smith, it does strike me that I am not aware of President Monson doing any of the things that Joseph Smith did make me consider him a prophet of God.

Where are the revelations, translations and prophecies? I am aware of none. Although President Monson is doubtless a good person, is there not more required in order to be considered a prophet of God?

So my question is this, for those who do believe Thomas Monson to be a prophet of God--On what does your belief rest?

Is it based on what he has done or said, or merely on the position he holds?

First and foremost my knowledge that Thomas S Monson is a prophet of God is based on the same thing by which I know Joseph Smith Jr. is a prophet of God: The power of the Holy Ghost. Also as for revelations of President Monson I suggest you consult the latest Conference Report for revelations from God to His living prophet. John the Baptist is considered the greatest prophet, yet to our knowledge he did not translate anything, or publish any revelations or prophecies. But he did declare repentace and performed the ordinances of salvation. Joseph Smith was the Elias to this dispensation, he restored things that had been lost or never revealed until the fullness of times. As such he had to translate, prophesy, and revealed much. The Church was established and the line of unbroken keys of authority has descended to us today and is held by President Monson, he is the current prophet, seer, and revelator and reveals those things that God wants taught in His Church today. The way to know the truth of all things is by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[Avatar4321]

President Monson is not only a Prophet, but also a Seer, and a Revelator. His office however, is President of the High Priesthood.

[ERayR]

The belief that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God seems required of faithful Latter-day Saints.

I am wondering what that belief rests upon.

The argument I hear most frequently is that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and therefore the leader of the church he organized must therefore also be a prophet of God.

My studies of Joseph Smith tend to lead me in the other direction.

Joseph Smith was a wholly different creature than Thomas Monson.

Joseph Smith revealed, translated and prophesied in profusion.

While I recognize we cannot expect every subsequent leader of the LDS Church to be a Joseph Smith, it does strike me that I am not aware of President Monson doing any of the things that Joseph Smith did make me consider him a prophet of God.

Where are the revelations, translations and prophecies? I am aware of none. Although President Monson is doubtless a good person, is there not more required in order to be considered a prophet of God?

So my question is this, for those who do believe Thomas Monson to be a prophet of God--On what does your belief rest?

Is it based on what he has done or said, or merely on the position he holds?

He has been ordained as such by those holding the proper authority so he must be.

[halconero]

So my question is this, for those who do believe Thomas Monson to be a prophet of God--On what does your belief rest?

The convincing power of the Holy Ghost.

[Storm Rider]

The belief that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God seems required of faithful Latter-day Saints.

I am wondering what that belief rests upon.

The argument I hear most frequently is that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and therefore the leader of the church he organized must therefore also be a prophet of God.

My studies of Joseph Smith tend to lead me in the other direction.

Joseph Smith was a wholly different creature than Thomas Monson.

Joseph Smith revealed, translated and prophesied in profusion.

While I recognize we cannot expect every subsequent leader of the LDS Church to be a Joseph Smith, it does strike me that I am not aware of President Monson doing any of the things that Joseph Smith did make me consider him a prophet of God.

Where are the revelations, translations and prophecies? I am aware of none. Although President Monson is doubtless a good person, is there not more required in order to be considered a prophet of God?

So my question is this, for those who do believe Thomas Monson to be a prophet of God--On what does your belief rest?

Is it based on what he has done or said, or merely on the position he holds?

The President of the Church holds the keys of the priesthood for all the earth. These keys come with the calling of being a prophet, seer, and revelator. However, few have functioned in each of this callings while serving as an apostle or prophet in the Church.

In a loose approach to being a prophet, or leader, then when the prophet speaks in general conference or when he functions as the president fo the Church then he is a prophet and revelator. Though we have not had a president act as a seer since Joseph, I believe that each member of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve hold the keys of being a prophet, seer, and revelator regardless of whether they act in that capacity or not.

[HairBear]

The belief that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God seems required of faithful Latter-day Saints.

I am wondering what that belief rests upon.

The argument I hear most frequently is that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and therefore the leader of the church he organized must therefore also be a prophet of God.

My studies of Joseph Smith tend to lead me in the other direction.

Joseph Smith was a wholly different creature than Thomas Monson.

Joseph Smith revealed, translated and prophesied in profusion.

While I recognize we cannot expect every subsequent leader of the LDS Church to be a Joseph Smith, it does strike me that I am not aware of President Monson doing any of the things that Joseph Smith did make me consider him a prophet of God.

Where are the revelations, translations and prophecies? I am aware of none. Although President Monson is doubtless a good person, is there not more required in order to be considered a prophet of God?

So my question is this, for those who do believe Thomas Monson to be a prophet of God--On what does your belief rest?

Is it based on what he has done or said, or merely on the position he holds?

What action constitutes someone being a prophet of God? It is when God recognises that person as His prophet. For me, Joseph Smith was a prophet of God from the First Vision, that was when God called him to the work. Anything he did after that point which God called hiim to do was part of his office as a prophet. God had called Thomas S. Monson to be the President of His Church at this time, and President Monson will do whatever God requires of him to do.

[SamIam]

The belief that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God seems required of faithful Latter-day Saints.

I am wondering what that belief rests upon.

The argument I hear most frequently is that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and therefore the leader of the church he organized must therefore also be a prophet of God.

My studies of Joseph Smith tend to lead me in the other direction.

Joseph Smith was a wholly different creature than Thomas Monson.

Joseph Smith revealed, translated and prophesied in profusion.

While I recognize we cannot expect every subsequent leader of the LDS Church to be a Joseph Smith, it does strike me that I am not aware of President Monson doing any of the things that Joseph Smith did make me consider him a prophet of God.

Where are the revelations, translations and prophecies? I am aware of none. Although President Monson is doubtless a good person, is there not more required in order to be considered a prophet of God?

So my question is this, for those who do believe Thomas Monson to be a prophet of God--On what does your belief rest?

Is it based on what he has done or said, or merely on the position he holds?

One might ask upon what grounds can you prove he is not? Or perhaps upon what grounds would you, John Ping Pong, be able to determine that he is a prophet? Or perhaps upon what gounds you have failed to be able to validate that he is a prophet to yourself. Well, I guess you can see where this is going. No matter what any might say to convince you the burden is yours, to ask the right questions, of the right sources and conform to the appropriate principles that might provide that you might get the answer to this question in the only way it can truly be provided. If we can help please let us know.

[TAO]

John, the way I know President Monson is a prophet of God is not by what he does - though that leads me to ask the question. What leads me to know it that the spirit whispers to me that it is true. And that, ultimately, is what truly matters.

When I hear things he says, and listen to others describe things he does, I can't help but always remember what the spirit says about him. That, to me, testifies of what he is, even if he leads slightly differently and under different circumstances than Joseph Smith, as well as Christ, our God, in his day. To me, the spirit is the ultimate testifier of a prophet, and I am so grateful to have it whispering to me when I act as I should.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The belief that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God seems required of faithful Latter-day Saints.

I am wondering what that belief rests upon.

The argument I hear most frequently is that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and therefore the leader of the church he organized must therefore also be a prophet of God.

My studies of Joseph Smith tend to lead me in the other direction.

Joseph Smith was a wholly different creature than Thomas Monson.

Joseph Smith revealed, translated and prophesied in profusion.

While I recognize we cannot expect every subsequent leader of the LDS Church to be a Joseph Smith, it does strike me that I am not aware of President Monson doing any of the things that Joseph Smith did make me consider him a prophet of God.

Where are the revelations, translations and prophecies? I am aware of none. Although President Monson is doubtless a good person, is there not more required in order to be considered a prophet of God?

So my question is this, for those who do believe Thomas Monson to be a prophet of God--On what does your belief rest?

Is it based on what he has done or said, or merely on the position he holds?

One of the things that impresses me...our Phrophet's do not feel the need to add to God's word out of vanity.

[Calm]

What action constitutes someone being a prophet of God? It is when God recognises that person as His prophet. For me, Joseph Smith was a prophet of God from the First Vision, that was when God called him to the work.

Then there is always foreordination to consider.....hmm.....

[Calm]

One of the things that impresses me...our Phrophet's do not feel the need to add to God's word out of vanity.

A very good point, imo, Pa Pa.

[John Ping Pong]

One of the things that impresses me...our Phrophet's do not feel the need to add to God's word out of vanity.

Are you saying President Monson is a prophet precisely because he does not receive revelation as did Joseph Smith?

Millions qualify using that test.

[John Ping Pong]

_{Even non-members have hailed Joseph Smith as a great man, and some as the most influential American who ever lived. Other non-members have claimed Joseph Smith to be a "prophet" and even a "religious genius."}

_{This is all based on the objective evidence of what he did. President Monson has no such objective evidence, and I see nobody who has responded so far disagreeing in this.}

_{Joseph Smith seemed to attract men and women of a similar temperament and character.}

_{Where are our Joseph Smith's?}

_{Was Joseph Smith really for only one time and place, or do you think there might be something inherent in the LDS organization that prevents new Smiths from emerging?}

_{Is this perhaps what Hugh Nibley called the "fatal shift" from Leadership to Management?}

[KevinG]

There are prophets everywhere in the LDS church. They just understand the scope of their authority and exercise their callings well within that scope.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Are you saying President Monson is a prophet precisely because he does not receive revelation as did Joseph Smith?

Millions qualify using that test.

A simplistic way of noting. Just look at CoC...RLDS. The D&C continuing to grow each Administration.

[Deborah]

Are you saying President Monson is a prophet precisely because he does not receive revelation as did Joseph Smith?

Why would you interpret what PaPa said in that way. Of course that's not what he was saying.

Just because modern prophets aren't as open about their revelations and miracles doesn't mean they aren't happening. This is what Dallin Oaks has to say about why chuch leaders don't share spiritual experiences unless guided by the Spirit to do so:

Two early revelations direct caution in speaking of sacred things:

Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation. D& C 63:64

Similarly, after again promising that signs would follow those who believed, the Savior declared:

But a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not boast of themselves of these things, neither speak them before the world; for these things are given unto you for your profit and salvation. D & c 84:73

Because of these scriptural directions and for other reasons, leaders and members of the Church usually refrain from speaking publicly about miracles or sacred spiritual experiences. In this we are like Mary, who "kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart."

Brigham Young was very outspoken but he didn't have the internet and spoke to the faithful. No doubt he now wishes he had kept more to himself given how there are those who are twisting his words to support their own apostasy. Joseph Smith being in the midst of non-members did not share everything he experienced, even his family. He had to be told by the Lord to tell his father about the first vision. He revealed what he had to reveal but often said there was much more he could say but the people weren't ready. I have had my own revelatory experiences and miracles that I don't broadcast except to certain people and when I feel moved by the spirit to do so. These are sacred.

[Storm Rider]

Deborah, I understand some of your reasoning from above and to the faithful I can understand how many would accept that and move forward. However, when speaking to those who's faith is challenged such a response can ring hollow at best. For example, since Joseph's time we have so very few new revelations added to the Standard Works to make one almost believe that the heavens were closed to new revelation for the Church at large.

The very purpose of having an open canon is that new scripture would be added to it. When little or nothing is added it is easy to question why not.

Years ago, decades, I had asked myself the same question, "where are the new revelations from prophets, seers, and revelators?" I never really found an answer that satisfied me, but I just moved on. When we don't find answers that really answer the question, rather we push it to the back, it is possible that we begin a road of apostasy. One unanswered question pushed aside becomes another unanswered question; before you know it you have many unanswered questions. Then one day another question comes to the fore and it cannot be pushed aside and you cannot move forward. It is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

Spiritual experiences are not the same as receiving revelation for the Church. All people, regardless of their calling, hold sacred experiences close and do not readily share them. This is not the same as a prophet that leads the Church of Jesus Christ receiving a revelation. We cannot parade one as the other; it dishonors everything involved.

For me, I have concluded that some questions will never be answered. I accept that as a reality of this mortal life. The moment I begin to think that I require a specific set of knowledge or I will not move forward any farther is the moment that I choose to enter into personal apostasy; I choose to believe in my arm of flesh rather than rely upon the Holy Spirit and in my Father in Heaven. This path leads to unhappiness and a broken heart. It is always our choice.

[blackstrap]

I wonder what would be an acceptable revelation to receive for today's church. Remember Joseph's statement about the people-- that they 'shatter like glass' . We got all in a huff about the suggestion to have just one set of earrings. I'm afraid that for many " you can't handle the truth" fits.

[Calm]

Most I hear want revelation not about something else for us to do, like build more temples, but new doctrinal teaching. Doesn't require us to change our lives at all, but we will feel wiser, more knowledgeable, special in this knowledge.

One should go back and make a study of what types of revelation were received when and where to see what type we would likely receive at this time if we got one.

[Deborah]

What is interesting about many of the revelations given in the D&C is that they were given to individuals who were neighbors of the prophet and asked him specifically for a revelation. We don't have that advantage today, but Joseph taught that he wanted us all to be prophets and receive our own revelation. Isn't that where the request for revelation should lie in an age where the prophet isn't next door and where we have had years of learning how to pray and get answers?

I personally believe that any significant warning type revelations or specific revelations will come from the stake and regional leaders given the diversity of the church geographically. At most in such a worldwide church the leaders can give us general warnings about being prepared. People seem to forget that our local leaders are also entitled to revelation for those under their jurisdiction. It reminds me of the time of Lehi when several "prophets" were going about preaching repentance and warning the people about what was coming.

I certainly would love it if the prophet was able to give us the details of how creation occurred or what the truth was on the flood or even how the Priesthood ban came about. I have what I feel are my own answers and am very satisfied with them for the time being. But I'm afraid if we got "new" revelation it would be for something else to do. Be careful what you ask for.