Are They Really "prophets, Seers & Revelators?"

[mormonnewb]

Question: When you sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers and revelators, what does that mean to you?

 

Until recently, I never gave this question much thought because of all of the doubts I've had about the Church, I have always been 100% sure that I was not its leader.  And since I had no ties to the Rigdons, Strangs or Jeffs, I was very comfortable with sustaining the Brethren as being the "duly appointed" leaders of this Church.

 

However, I think that most of you see their positions as prophets, seers and revelators as more than just being our version of, say, Executive Vice Presidents.  But rather you view the Brethren as modern-day embodiments of Samuel, Daniel, John the Beloved, etc.

 

I'm having trouble with making this connection because their roles seem so different than from the prophets of old; or even from the "prophets of new" like Joseph Smith.  JS brought forth a new book of scripture and a restoration of the Gospel.  He made prophesies about future events.  He exclaimed previous unknown truths (e.g., God is corporeal, the Godhead is three separate personages, Adam-Ondi-Ahman, etc.).

 

I don't see our current prophets, seers and revelators doing these types of things and up until now, it really hasn't bothered me.  I just assumed that we were in a different phase of the Church and that now, HF had chosen wise men who are able administrators to lead the Church.  And this made sense to me.  It requires much different skills to run a church of, say, 1,500 people than it does to turn a church of 15 million people.

 

The problem with my view of our current prophets, seers and revelators is that it does not provide me with the same sense of confidence that it seems to provide for many of you.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I tend to agree with the Brethren's counsel.  In fact, I will even give them the benefit of the doubt in cases in which I don't have strong feelings about the matter.  For instance, I obey the Word of Wisdom despite lacking any deep conviction that HF has decreed Red Bull to be better for my immortal soul than coffee.  I comply because wise men encourage it and I have no reason to believe that I will be worse off without these things.  But I might be just as willing to take that attitude with advice given by my earthly father and he is an outright heathen (and proudly so).

 

So what is it that you see in the Brethren that makes their words end in your head with, "Thus sayeth the Lord"?   As opposed to, in my head, where it might end "Thus sayeth the EVP of Northern Europe"?

 

And, by the way, I'm not being snarky.  I SINCERELY want to know what I'm missing here.  Obviously, there is something that many of you have seen or heard throughout the years that makes their position as prophets, seers and revelators more than just titles to you.  Or perhaps, you've found some other way to define those terms that still allows you to have confidence that they are more than just wise men with the best of intentions.  Either way, I'd LOVE to have that assurance myself so please help me to know what you know.

[CV75]

Question: When you sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers and revelators, what does that mean to you?

I think it would be helpful to to make a list of how you think they are the same, and a list of how you think they are different, from the prophets, seers and revelators of old. I think you would discover that in all the eternally essential areas they are the same, and that the non-essential areas have to do with the expediency of having to get along in their respective epochs.

[Calm]

So what is it that you see in the Brethren that makes their words end in your head with, "Thus sayeth the Lord"?   As opposed to, in my head, where it might end "Thus sayeth the EVP of Northern Europe"?

 

That is not how it ends up in my head.  I suppose mine is closer to "thus sayeth this prophet, seer and revelator when he tries to communicate the inspiration or revelation he has received on the subject from the Lord to the rest of us."

[Teancum]

Mormonweb

 

I think you know the real answer to your OP don't you?

[Mystery Meat]

I believe President Monson is no different than say Moses, Elijah, or Peter (except President Monson actually holds more keys). I don't believe they are just administrators. If I thought that I would not be a member of this church. I believe God is at the head and he literally works through the First Presidency and 12, thus making them Prophets, Seers, and Revelators in the same sense as any prophet of old. In fact, fundamental to our doctrine is the concept that the many of the keys those prophets held have since been restored to the presiding brethren. As for why President Monson hasn't parted the Great Salt Lake or participated in other such dramatic events as we read in the Bible, I suppose that is the Lord's call. But it's not because President Monson is lacking the power or the authority from God. 

 

I am also sure that people who lived in the times of the prophets of old thought they were quite ordinary (maybe they would even use words like administrator) and longed for the days of the prophets of old. In fact, I think the Bible and Book of Mormon pretty much say as much.

[ERMD]

What do you think the original 12 were doing after the resurrection of Christ?

[Mystery Meat]

Mormonweb

 

I think you know the real answer to your OP don't you?

 

Why don't you tell us how YOU feel instead of being cute.

[mormonnewb]

Mormonweb

 

I think you know the real answer to your OP don't you?

I really don't know the answer. While it is not beyond me to use a rhetorical ploy to make a point, I really would like to understand this. Some of the very best Christians that I know seem to have a firm testimony about actual prophets, et al? If having that testimony can make me HALF as kind, generous and loving as these people, then sign me up!

[Teancum]

Why don't you tell us how YOU feel instead of being cute.

 

 

Oh it is just fun to be cute.

[Teancum]

I really don't know the answer. While it is not beyond me to use a rhetorical ploy to make a point, I really would like to understand this. Some of the very best Christians that I know seem to have a firm testimony about actual prophets, et al? If having that testimony can make me HALF as kind, generous and loving as these people, then sign me up!

 

 

Fair enough. If believing these men really are prophets, seers and revelators helps you be a better person and you perhaps would not be otherwise.

I struggled with this question for some time because for most my life I believes literally that they were what we and they claim,

 

Not so much anymore because I think based on the evidence they miss the mark quite often.  Never the less I do accept their right to lead and guide the LDS Church and anyone who is willing to submit to their authority in that aspect.  However I am very cautious to simply accept what they say as it applies to me personally unless it feels good and right and I have a personal conviction of it.  I do not simply accept and if I come up with a different answer I do not assume I am the one who is the one who is wrong.

 

Oh and I know lots of very good Christians as well as non Christians who are as good and decent as any active LDS and they certainly do not accept the LDS leaders as prophets and apostles.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Teancum

[mormonnewb]

What do you think the original 12 were doing after the resurrection of Christ?

Aside from a few miracles, they seemed to do pretty much what our Apostles do -- administer the Church. For the same reason, I don't normally see them as PSRs and I'm not so sure that they saw themselves that way either (with the exception of John and Paul). And, in the case of Paul (who was probably the most PSR-like), I'm not even sure he was an "official" apostle in the sense that he replaced one of the original twelve.

But I do concede that perhaps, my view of a PSR might be sensationalized and that not every day involves burning bushes and walls falling from shouts. But there should be some such days, right?

Have any of you witnessed one of these types of days with the Brethren?

[DarkScythe]

Each era has their own needs, so they need different leaders to address them fully.

[readstoomuch]

I think a spiritual leader tells us what we need to know instead of what we necessarily want to hear. I think the Pope and Billy Graham are examples of this as well as our 15. I felt impressed that the Pope was chosen by God the same way I feel that our prophet was chosen. If I had to explain the differences between those other leaders and ours , it would be about having the restored authority. I do feel like my leaders tell me what I need to know.

For whatever reason being a seer or translator is a much less common attribute, just like it was in the BOM. JS was a mediocre leader/judge of character, but he inspired people in a way that was profound. He was also an example of long suffering. BY was a far more effective administrator.

As far as questions about our present leaders, I struggle with the missionary program. As far as past administrations I wonder about how our history was told. The present leaders are open, but they have the challenge of how it was told in the past and wanting to minister to members spiritually.

Don't know if that helps.

[mormonnewb]

However I am very cautious to simply accept what they say as it applies to me personally unless it feels good and right and I have a personal conviction of it.  I do not simply accept and if I come up with a different answer I do not assume I am the one who is the one who is wrong.

 

Oh and I know lots of very good Christians as well as non Christians who are as good and decent as any active LDS and they certainly do not accept the LDS leaders as prophets and apostles.

I think everyone is on a sliding scale of apostolic obedience. Even the most TBM would balk if the Prophet told them that there was no Jesus and we should instead worship him. Conversely, not even the most virulent anti-Mormon would start beating his wife just because the Prophet told him not to (on the other hand, if she went out and bought granite countertops despite his obvious ambivalence on the matter, that would be another story).

Seriously, we all evaluate the words of the Prophet to see if they make sense to us. The difference is that some will obey only when they agree. Others will obey if they agree or are otherwise indifferent. And yet others will obey even if they disagree, unless the disagreement is over something MONUMENTAL. Some of the best people I know are in this third camp.

As for Mormons not having a monopoly on goodness, amen! However, as someone who spent many years as an atheist and about a decade bouncing around various Christian sects, I've come to see it this way. The top 20% of Mormons are no better than anyone else's top 20% (including the top 20% of atheists). Likewise, the bottom 20% of Mormons are just as bad as anyone else's 20% (I'm proof of that). However, in the middle 60%, Mormons shine. Sure, in my old churches, I could find those rare individuals who would look in on my family when I was away on business or help me move. But in my ward, it is rare to encounter the person who would NOT help.

Now, maybe I just belong to an unusual ward. Or perhaps, I picked really crappy friends in the other churches (birds of a feather and all). Or maybe there is something about this Church's leadership that produces saints with such consistency. That's what I'm trying to find out.

[teddyaware]

Question: When you sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers and revelators, what does that mean to you?

 

Until recently, I never gave this question much thought because of all of the doubts I've had about the Church, I have always been 100% sure that I was not its leader.  And since I had no ties to the Rigdons, Strangs or Jeffs, I was very comfortable with sustaining the Brethren as being the "duly appointed" leaders of this Church.

 

However, I think that most of you see their positions as prophets, seers and revelators as more than just being our version of, say, Executive Vice Presidents.  But rather you view the Brethren as modern-day embodiments of Samuel, Daniel, John the Beloved, etc.

 

I'm having trouble with making this connection because their roles seem so different than from the prophets of old; or even from the "prophets of new" like Joseph Smith.  JS brought forth a new book of scripture and a restoration of the Gospel.  He made prophesies about future events.  He exclaimed previous unknown truths (e.g., God is corporeal, the Godhead is three separate personages, Adam-Ondi-Ahman, etc.).

 

I don't see our current prophets, seers and revelators doing these types of things and up until now, it really hasn't bothered me.  I just assumed that we were in a different phase of the Church and that now, HF had chosen wise men who are able administrators to lead the Church.  And this made sense to me.  It requires much different skills to run a church of, say, 1,500 people than it does to turn a church of 15 million people.

 

The problem with my view of our current prophets, seers and revelators is that it does not provide me with the same sense of confidence that it seems to provide for many of you.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I tend to agree with the Brethren's counsel.  In fact, I will even give them the benefit of the doubt in cases in which I don't have strong feelings about the matter.  For instance, I obey the Word of Wisdom despite lacking any deep conviction that HF has decreed Red Bull to be better for my immortal soul than coffee.  I comply because wise men encourage it and I have no reason to believe that I will be worse off without these things.  But I might be just as willing to take that attitude with advice given by my earthly father and he is an outright heathen (and proudly so).

 

So what is it that you see in the Brethren that makes their words end in your head with, "Thus sayeth the Lord"?   As opposed to, in my head, where it might end "Thus sayeth the EVP of Northern Europe"?

 

And, by the way, I'm not being snarky.  I SINCERELY want to know what I'm missing here.  Obviously, there is something that many of you have seen or heard throughout the years that makes their position as prophets, seers and revelators more than just titles to you.  Or perhaps, you've found some other way to define those terms that still allows you to have confidence that they are more than just wise men with the best of intentions.  Either way, I'd LOVE to have that assurance myself so please help me to know what you know.

With this post I finally understand where you are coming from -- mystery solved. In answer to your question, I would answer by saying you should spend most of your time becoming a great scriptorian (I believe you have the intellectual and spiritual capacity to succeed at this) in a dynamic quest to gain a deep understanding of the words of the prophets. You should pursue this course rather than spending hours bashing, clashing and thrashing. When you finally gain a profound, revelatory understanding of the scriptures, by the power of the Holy Ghost, you will realize the words of our latter-day prophets, seers and revelators, uttered in their General Conference addresses, are modern-day scripture equal to the revelations of past but tailored to our day and time. In other words, you need to become a prophet unto yourself before you will be able to clearly see revelation is alive and well at the General Authority and local levels of the Church.

Edited April 11, 2014 by teddyaware

[Mystery Meat]

I think everyone is on a sliding scale of apostolic obedience. Even the most TBM would balk if the Prophet told them that there was no Jesus and we should instead worship him. Conversely, not even the most virulent anti-Mormon would start beating his wife just because the Prophet told him not to (on the other hand, if she went out and bought granite countertops despite his obvious ambivalence on the matter, that would be another story).

Seriously, we all evaluate the words of the Prophet to see if they make sense to us. The difference is that some will obey only when they agree. Others will obey if they agree or are otherwise indifferent. And yet others will obey even if they disagree, unless the disagreement is over something MONUMENTAL. Some of the best people I know are in this third camp.

As for Mormons not having a monopoly on goodness, amen! However, as someone who spent many years as an atheist and about a decade bouncing around various Christian sects, I've come to see it this way. The top 20% of Mormons are no better than anyone else's top 20% (including the top 20% of atheists). Likewise, the bottom 20% of Mormons are just as bad as anyone else's 20% (I'm proof of that). However, in the middle 60%, Mormons shine. Sure, in my old churches, I could find those rare individuals who would look in on my family when I was away on business or help me move. But in my ward, it is rare to encounter the person who would NOT help.

Now, maybe I just belong to an unusual ward. Or perhaps, I picked really crappy friends in the other churches (birds of a feather and all). Or maybe there is something about this Church's leadership that produces saints with such consistency. That's what I'm trying to find out.

 

Newb, and I mean this sincerely, I really like you. I think you are a good guy. I disagree with just about everything you say (mostly because you are wrong all the time  ), but I am glad to call you a fellow saint. If I ever forget that in the future would you kindly remind me we are buds? 

[Rivers]

With this post I finally understand where you are coming from -- mystery solved. In answer to your question, I would answer by saying you should spend most of your time becoming a great scriptorian (I believe you have the intellectual and spiritual capacity to succeed at this), in a dynamic quest to gain a profound understanding of the words of the prophets. You should pursue this course rather than spending hours bashing, clashing and thrashing. When you finally gain a profound, revelatory understanding of the scriptures, by the power of the Holy Ghost, you will realize the words of our latter-day prophets, seers and revelators, as uttered in their General Conference addresses, are modern-day scripture equal to the revelations of past but tailored to our day and time. In other words, you need to become a prophet unto yourself before you will be able to clearly see revelation is alive and well at the General Authority and local levels of the Church.

That's not bad advice.

[canard78]

I believe President Monson is no different than say Moses, Elijah, or Peter (except President Monson actually holds more keys). I don't believe they are just administrators. If I thought that I would not be a member of this church. I believe God is at the head and he literally works through the First Presidency and 12, thus making them Prophets, Seers, and Revelators in the same sense as any prophet of old. In fact, fundamental to our doctrine is the concept that the many of the keys those prophets held have since been restored to the presiding brethren. As for why President Monson hasn't parted the Great Salt Lake or participated in other such dramatic events as we read in the Bible, I suppose that is the Lord's call. But it's not because President Monson is lacking the power or the authority from God. 

 

I am also sure that people who lived in the times of the prophets of old thought they were quite ordinary (maybe they would even use words like administrator) and longed for the days of the prophets of old. In fact, I think the Bible and Book of Mormon pretty much say as much.

 

When Elder Andersen spoke during Saturday morning session, I realised how much my perspective has changed. He said:

 

"You need the strength that comes from trusting the Lord’s prophets. President Harold B. Lee said: “The only safety we have as members of this church is to … learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through His prophet. … There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes. … It may contradict your political views … your social views … interfere with … your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, … ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you … and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you …’"

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/spiritual-whirlwinds?lang=eng#15-10985_000_16andersen (emphasis mine)

 

I do not believe that our "only safety" is to listen to the prophet. I do not believe that when they speak it is "as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself."

 

I think President Hinkley summarised my view of prophets:

 

I pray. I pray to Him. Night and morning. I speak with Him. I think He hears my prayers. As He hears the prayers of others. I think He answers them... (I)f a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.

 

http://ldsthoughtfulquotes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/rb-as-world-leader-of-the-church-how.html

 

I listen to conference and read the first presidency messages and teachings of the prophets. Most of what they say is positive, inspiring and good. If you follow the majority of their teachings it will help you become a better person. I genuinely believe that. As such, I consider them a sound, perhaps even 'safe' source of guidance.

 

Elder Uchtdorf's first presidency message for April (on anchoring etc) was fantastic. Elder Zwick's talk on empathy, President Monson's talk on loving your neighbour, Elder Bednar's on taking other people's burdens. President Uchtdorf gave one of the best talks on dealing with addiction that I've ever heard from a church leader. 

 

But... I don't feel a need to believe that everything they say is "as if from the mouth of the Lord himself." I am comfortable having a personal triage. I read, ponder and pray. Lots of it is applicable. There are some things I feel comfortable discarding. I don't think it's possible that 1 person can say things that are relevant and applicable to 15million Mormons (let alone the 7billion+ living today). An advantage of having a leadership of 15 "prophets" is that they teach a range of messages in their personal style. That creates much more opportunity to speak with relevance and applicability to more people.

 

The whole issue of prophets teaching the black black priesthood/temple attendance and inter-racial marriage and the reasons for it (as a matter of doctrine) is a single, but important example that, for me, proves that sometimes a prophet speaks in error. That doesn't stop the majority of what they say being positive advice, but I don't consider it binding or universally applicable all the time.

 

As such I feel comfortable discarding some statements or talks from prophets, both historic and current. For example, I usually love Elder Holland's talks. His talk last year on mental illness was outstanding. His talk last weekend was not. It was full of hyperbole and inaccuracy. It taught a dichotomy that is entirely unneeded. It described people of other faiths dismissively and condescendingly. And does anyone have any idea what a "village love-in" is?

 

In March I wrote three different posts about my perspective on prophets:

 

A Thoughtful Gospel Principles. Chapter 9: Prophets of God

Of prophets and pagodas

I’m not afraid anymore

 

 

That is not how it ends up in my head.  I suppose mine is closer to "thus sayeth this prophet, seer and revelator when he tries to communicate the inspiration or revelation he has received on the subject from the Lord to the rest of us."

 

Cal... I like this approach  

[Storm Rider]

Question: When you sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers and revelators, what does that mean to you?

 

Until recently, I never gave this question much thought because of all of the doubts I've had about the Church, I have always been 100% sure that I was not its leader.  And since I had no ties to the Rigdons, Strangs or Jeffs, I was very comfortable with sustaining the Brethren as being the "duly appointed" leaders of this Church.

 

However, I think that most of you see their positions as prophets, seers and revelators as more than just being our version of, say, Executive Vice Presidents.  But rather you view the Brethren as modern-day embodiments of Samuel, Daniel, John the Beloved, etc.

 

I'm having trouble with making this connection because their roles seem so different than from the prophets of old; or even from the "prophets of new" like Joseph Smith.  JS brought forth a new book of scripture and a restoration of the Gospel.  He made prophesies about future events.  He exclaimed previous unknown truths (e.g., God is corporeal, the Godhead is three separate personages, Adam-Ondi-Ahman, etc.).

 

I don't see our current prophets, seers and revelators doing these types of things and up until now, it really hasn't bothered me.  I just assumed that we were in a different phase of the Church and that now, HF had chosen wise men who are able administrators to lead the Church.  And this made sense to me.  It requires much different skills to run a church of, say, 1,500 people than it does to turn a church of 15 million people.

 

The problem with my view of our current prophets, seers and revelators is that it does not provide me with the same sense of confidence that it seems to provide for many of you.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I tend to agree with the Brethren's counsel.  In fact, I will even give them the benefit of the doubt in cases in which I don't have strong feelings about the matter.  For instance, I obey the Word of Wisdom despite lacking any deep conviction that HF has decreed Red Bull to be better for my immortal soul than coffee.  I comply because wise men encourage it and I have no reason to believe that I will be worse off without these things.  But I might be just as willing to take that attitude with advice given by my earthly father and he is an outright heathen (and proudly so).

 

So what is it that you see in the Brethren that makes their words end in your head with, "Thus sayeth the Lord"?   As opposed to, in my head, where it might end "Thus sayeth the EVP of Northern Europe"?

 

And, by the way, I'm not being snarky.  I SINCERELY want to know what I'm missing here.  Obviously, there is something that many of you have seen or heard throughout the years that makes their position as prophets, seers and revelators more than just titles to you.  Or perhaps, you've found some other way to define those terms that still allows you to have confidence that they are more than just wise men with the best of intentions.  Either way, I'd LOVE to have that assurance myself so please help me to know what you know.

 

You do seem to be a on a bit of a tear of late, my brother.  

 

I sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers, and revelators because I believe they hold those keys. I do not think they function in those roles very often i.e. we have not had a functioning seer since the time of Joseph and there has not been a further need of this function in the world/church.  It is much easier to classify them as revelators in the sense that they receive revelation  and guidance in leading the body of Christ on earth.  To me a prophet is more than a leadership/intermediary function, it demands the the ability to foretell and warn. I freely admit that this broader definition may only create a problem with semantics for me.  If I limit the definition to being an intermediary between God and man then the Brethren fill that function.

 

Said another way, I believe the Brethren hold the keys of each function: prophet, seer, and revelator and they are prophets, seers, and revelators when they function as such; otherwise they are men who are striving to serve God. 

[Kenngo1969]

...The problem with my view of our current prophets, seers and revelators is that it does not provide me with the same sense of confidence that it seems to provide for many of you.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I tend to agree with the Brethren's counsel.  In fact, I will even give them the benefit of the doubt in cases in which I don't have strong feelings about the matter.  For instance, I obey the Word of Wisdom despite lacking any deep conviction that HF has decreed Red Bull to be better for my immortal soul than coffee.  I comply because wise men encourage it and I have no reason to believe that I will be worse off without these things.  But I might be just as willing to take that attitude with advice given by my earthly father and he is an outright heathen (and proudly so).

 

How about obeying the Word of Wisdom and other Gospel principles because you have covenanted to do so?  Are there blessings that accrue to someone that extend beyond the "black letter" edicts of the Scriptures when he, rather than opting for obedience for mere Pharasaical reasons, obeys, instead, because he's made promises to God to do so?  I believe so.  In a "Maybe coffee isn't so bad for you; after all, it has antioxidants in it!" thread, I once said, "I don't care if it is the very Elixir of Life. I have covenanted not to drink it, and I know I'll be blessed for keeping my covenants."  The Word of Wisdom, for example, isn't simply a list of Prescriptions and Proscriptions.  According to the last four verses of the section, the chief blessings that come from obeying it are spiritual.

 

My $0.02. 

Edited April 11, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

I really don't know the answer. While it is not beyond me to use a rhetorical ploy to make a point, I really would like to understand this. Some of the very best Christians that I know seem to have a firm testimony about actual prophets, et al? If having that testimony can make me HALF as kind, generous and loving as these people, then sign me up!

While there may be a correlation between having a testimony and being kind, generous and loving, many people other than "these people" display these qualities without it. Having a testimony is a great blessing but only part of the key to becoming Christlike. You need to nurture it valiantly, just as others without a testimony nurture the light of Christ, or their conscience. Here is a great article about what a testimony is and what it can do and how to nurture it: https://www.lds.org/topics/testimony?lang=eng

[CV75]

But there should be some such days, right?

Not with all the other truly amazing witnesses that we have at our disposal by virtue of the Restoration. Our Prophets, Seers and Revelators have the keys (see Elder Oak's talk) to make these witnesses possible, everything from the Book of Mormon and latter-day scripture to our temple covenants, things that were never so avaliable to so many of the living and the dead 9actually, all the dead).

[Alan]

I think this is a very interesting and important topic.

My own view, which has changed over the years, is that the brethren have the potential to be (that is, behave like) prophets, seers and revelators, because they are set apart to do so. If the Lord has something important to communicate to us he will do it through them.

However, I don't believe they are prophets in the way Joseph was. He was actively engaged in this divine calling and brought many revelations to the church. The current brethren bring none in my view, but instead expand upon and interpret previous revelations for our day. This is a major difference.

My personal belief is that this current state of affairs will continue until the Lord calls a new prophet. President of the church and prophet of the church are not necessarily the same thing.

 

Some will argue that the 1978 statement regarding priesthood ordination is an example of modern day revelation to the church. However, I would dispute that idea on the basis that there was no written revelation or document described as a revelation, the practice of ordaining black men to the priesthood had already occured in the church (in Joseph's day), and that the restriction was brought about without any recorded revelation on the subject or the exercise of common consent. The brethren were inspired to right a wrong when they earnestly sought a resolution to the problem, after having studied it out in their own minds first. This could better be described as inspiration rather than revelation. President Hinckley famously referred to this kind of revelation as an " inspired hunch".

 

So the answer to the OP is yes, and no.

[Kevin Christensen]

I took the time to find 28 Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets. By that measure, they do measure up.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

While it happens that some prophets may do miracles (Moses, Jesus, Elijah), others obviously don't (Abraham, Jeremiah, John the Baptist). Not every prophet needs to build an Ark because, not every prophet deals with floods. By me, the still small voice and a theophany are both revelations from the same God.

An interesting word that appears several times in the Doctrine and Covenants is "expedience."

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Teancum]

When Elder Andersen spoke during Saturday morning session, I realised how much my perspective has changed. He said:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/spiritual-whirlwinds?lang=eng#15-10985_000_16andersen (emphasis mine)

 

I do not believe that our "only safety" is to listen to the prophet. I do not believe that when they speak it is "as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself."

 

I think President Hinkley summarised my view of prophets:

 

http://ldsthoughtfulquotes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/rb-as-world-leader-of-the-church-how.html

 

I listen to conference and read the first presidency messages and teachings of the prophets. Most of what they say is positive, inspiring and good. If you follow the majority of their teachings it will help you become a better person. I genuinely believe that. As such, I consider them a sound, perhaps even 'safe' source of guidance.

 

Elder Uchtdorf's first presidency message for April (on anchoring etc) was fantastic. Elder Zwick's talk on empathy, President Monson's talk on loving your neighbour, Elder Bednar's on taking other people's burdens. President Uchtdorf gave one of the best talks on dealing with addiction that I've ever heard from a church leader. 

 

But... I don't feel a need to believe that everything they say is "as if from the mouth of the Lord himself." I am comfortable having a personal triage. I read, ponder and pray. Lots of it is applicable. There are some things I feel comfortable discarding. I don't think it's possible that 1 person can say things that are relevant and applicable to 15million Mormons (let alone the 7billion+ living today). An advantage of having a leadership of 15 "prophets" is that they teach a range of messages in their personal style. That creates much more opportunity to speak with relevance and applicability to more people.

 

The whole issue of prophets teaching the black black priesthood/temple attendance and inter-racial marriage and the reasons for it (as a matter of doctrine) is a single, but important example that, for me, proves that sometimes a prophet speaks in error. That doesn't stop the majority of what they say being positive advice, but I don't consider it binding or universally applicable all the time.

 

As such I feel comfortable discarding some statements or talks from prophets, both historic and current. For example, I usually love Elder Holland's talks. His talk last year on mental illness was outstanding. His talk last weekend was not. It was full of hyperbole and inaccuracy. It taught a dichotomy that is entirely unneeded. It described people of other faiths dismissively and condescendingly. And does anyone have any idea what a "village love-in" is?

 

In March I wrote three different posts about my perspective on prophets:

 

A Thoughtful Gospel Principles. Chapter 9: Prophets of God

Of prophets and pagodas

I’m not afraid anymore

 

 

 

Cal... I like this approach

 

This sums up my view ins a much better way than I am able to communicate. Thank you.