Are They Really "prophets, Seers & Revelators?"

[Teancum]

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. 

 

I would respecfully ask how do you know what I bolded above?   It seems to me that we say this simply becasue this function does not seem to be active in the current LDS leaders, nor as you point out, has it been for some time.   So how do you know? And why?  Were not 2/3 of the plates sealed.  Doesn't an article of faith state more great things will be revealed?   I know some will say great things are being revealed but I am not sure I would class more temples, the conference center, the missionary age nor even the POTF in this class.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mormonweb

 

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

Why don't you ask more manipulative questions. People really like that type of question.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

 

 

The current brethren bring none in my view, but instead expand upon and interpret previous revelations for our day. This is a major difference.

 

Hmm.  I've thought about these ideas before and commented in a thread awhile back, but it seems like what most Mormons mean by "prophet, seer, and revelator" today would actually apply to the Popes of the Catholic Church as well.  The Pope writes encyclicals that are sent out to the entire world.  They are solemn declarations of doctrine, discipline, morals, and faith.  The most recent one was proclaimed on June 29, 2013, and is called Lumen Fidei, the Light of Faith (the encyclicals are titled after their first two or three words in Latin).  This seems to be very similar to general conference addresses.  These encyclicals are declaring, testifying, explaining, and expanding on things and are tailoring them to our current time and needs.

 

If you said, "the president of the LDS church has the authority to explain and expand upon the doctrines revealed by Joseph Smith and passed down faithfully since then, as well as in rare occasions to solemnly declare something an official doctrine (like OD-1 and OD-2)" you would be saying almost the exact thing we say about the Pope:  "The Pope has the authority to explain and expand upon the doctrines revealed to the Apostles and passed down faithfully since then, as well as in rare occasions to solemnly declare a dogma (the last one being the Assumption of Mary, which was solemnly declared, ex cathedra, as dogma in 1950)."

 

So, the Pope explains the doctrines to us in ways that match our current problems, needs, and understandings.  That sounds very much what you are claiming that the president and apostles do in conference.  The Pope can also declare something to a be a doctrine that is then binding upon Catholics to believe.  That sounds very much like what presidents of the church can do.

 

Popes have also affirmed that they rarely speak infallibly, but the Church teaches that we are to give their words "due respect" because of their office.  Only when they speak infallibly and proclaim dogma ex cathedra must we give unconditional "assent."  It seems like this is a current battle raging in the LDS church, or at least on this board, ha, as concerns talks given in general conference!  Whenever the Pope speaks, I give his words due respect because he is the Pope and is most likely right in what he says, but there is also room for me to wrestle with the teachings and even, perhaps, disagree, because he is not speaking ex cathedra.  In fact, there are instances in Church history where a Pope has taught a doctrine, but not infallibly, and that doctrine has later been declared as false.

 

It seems to me that when the LDS church says that it has modern-day prophets who receive modern-day revelations (and I am excepting Joseph Smith here), there is little practical difference from the Catholic Church.  However, the words "prophets" and "revelations" are pretty heady, and give people the idea that the president and apostles are speaking the literal words of God on a regular basis, like the prophets in the Bible.  Of course, we claim that the Pope is the "Vicar of Christ" and that's a pretty heady statement, too.

 

I'll sum up by saying that if we ignore the semantics and the terms, and look at the practicalities involved (oh my, I'm being a pragmatist now), in practice, the LDS church and the Catholic Church seem to operate the same when it comes to "modern-day revelation."  So, Mormons perhaps should not say that they are the only church that claims to receive revelation, since the Catholic Church claims the same (though terminology differs).  In other words, since Joseph Smith's time, the LDS church is not as unique in this matter as some people seem to claim.  The uniqueness lies in your claim that the president of the church has authority and the Pope does not, but not in the fact that you claim modern-day revelation and other churches do not.

 

Thoughts?

[Teancum]

Why don't you ask more manipulative questions. People really like that type of question.

 

 

 

I will try harder to displease you in the future.  My question was actually sincere. Too bad for you if you don't like it. 

[Ahab]

I'm not totally sure myself about all of the distinctions involved in being a prophet, seer, and revelator, because to me it seems that all 3 of those terms refer to pretty much the same thing, but I still think I can tell you why I sustain certain people as prophets, seers, and revelators.

First, I can see the difference between someone/anyone who receives personal revelation from God and someone/anyone who just accepts what someone/anyone else claims is revelation from God, so when I sustain someone/anyone as a prophet, seer, or revelator I am saying that I know those who I sustain have (past tense) received personal revelation from God instead of being people who just echo what someone else (other than God) told them.

It's like tbe difference between people who know from personal revelation from God that the Holy Bible was inspired by God, vs people who claim to know it is simply because somebody else (other than God) told them it is.

Secondly, I am also sustaining those people who I sustain as prophets, seers and revelators because I know they have been given the keys of the kingdom of God which entitle them to be able to receive (future tense) personal revelation from God, regardless of whatever may be revealed to them.

And thirdly, by sustaining them I am also saying that I am willing to help them see and understand what God has revealed to me so that we all can understand and proclaim what God has revealed to us, personally, so that we can all have more joy in our lives.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Considering we don't even know who wrote half of the writings of the "prophets of old" and no one knows if Moses existed or the Exodus even happened, I would be happy with "just wise men with the best of intentions".  But I really think they are clearly inspired by whoever it is that whispers in my ear that they are.

 

The problem is that you are not skeptical ENOUGH.

[mfbukowski]

Hmm.  I've thought about these ideas before and commented in a thread awhile back, but it seems like what most Mormons mean by "prophet, seer, and revelator" today would actually apply to the Popes of the Catholic Church as well.  The Pope writes encyclicals that are sent out to the entire world.  They are solemn declarations of doctrine, discipline, morals, and faith.  The most recent one was proclaimed on June 29, 2013, and is called Lumen Fidei, the Light of Faith (the encyclicals are titled after their first two or three words in Latin).  This seems to be very similar to general conference addresses.  These encyclicals are declaring, testifying, explaining, and expanding on things and are tailoring them to our current time and needs.

 

If you said, "the president of the LDS church has the authority to explain and expand upon the doctrines revealed by Joseph Smith and passed down faithfully since then, as well as in rare occasions to solemnly declare something an official doctrine (like OD-1 and OD-2)" you would be saying almost the exact thing we say about the Pope:  "The Pope has the authority to explain and expand upon the doctrines revealed to the Apostles and passed down faithfully since then, as well as in rare occasions to solemnly declare a dogma (the last one being the Assumption of Mary, which was solemnly declared, ex cathedra, as dogma in 1950)."

 

So, the Pope explains the doctrines to us in ways that match our current problems, needs, and understandings.  That sounds very much what you are claiming that the president and apostles do in conference.  The Pope can also declare something to a be a doctrine that is then binding upon Catholics to believe.  That sounds very much like what presidents of the church can do.

 

Popes have also affirmed that they rarely speak infallibly, but the Church teaches that we are to give their words "due respect" because of their office.  Only when they speak infallibly and proclaim dogma ex cathedra must we give unconditional "assent."  It seems like this is a current battle raging in the LDS church, or at least on this board, ha, as concerns talks given in general conference!  Whenever the Pope speaks, I give his words due respect because he is the Pope and is most likely right in what he says, but there is also room for me to wrestle with the teachings and even, perhaps, disagree, because he is not speaking ex cathedra.  In fact, there are instances in Church history where a Pope has taught a doctrine, but not infallibly, and that doctrine has later been declared as false.

 

It seems to me that when the LDS church says that it has modern-day prophets who receive modern-day revelations (and I am excepting Joseph Smith here), there is little practical difference from the Catholic Church.  However, the words "prophets" and "revelations" are pretty heady, and give people the idea that the president and apostles are speaking the literal words of God on a regular basis, like the prophets in the Bible.  Of course, we claim that the Pope is the "Vicar of Christ" and that's a pretty heady statement, too.

 

I'll sum up by saying that if we ignore the semantics and the terms, and look at the practicalities involved (oh my, I'm being a pragmatist now), in practice, the LDS church and the Catholic Church seem to operate the same when it comes to "modern-day revelation."  So, Mormons perhaps should not say that they are the only church that claims to receive revelation, since the Catholic Church claims the same (though terminology differs).  In other words, since Joseph Smith's time, the LDS church is not as unique in this matter as some people seem to claim.  The uniqueness lies in your claim that the president of the church has authority and the Pope does not, but not in the fact that you claim modern-day revelation and other churches do not.

 

Thoughts?

Virtually no practical difference.  Same stuff, different names.  The pope lives in Salt Lake.  

 

Seriously though, that was the mental shift I made and it still works in discussions like this.

[mfbukowski]

Virtually no practical difference.  Same stuff, different names.  The pope lives in Salt Lake.  

 

Seriously though, that was the mental shift I made and it still works in discussions like this.

Another difference is an open Canon and that if canonized, an encyclical has the force of scripture.

[CV75]

Thoughts?

I agree that in LDS usage, the crux of the title “prophet, seer and revelator,” and for any that hold that title to actually be a prophet, seer and revelator, is to possess the keys of the kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet,_seer,_and_revelator

This is why I find the perception that the primary role of a prophet, seer and revelator as being to merely explain and expand upon doctrine (however arguably fallibly or not) very “scary” and limiting. From the article linked above, “A prophet is a teacher of known truth; a seer is a perceiver of hidden truth, a revelator is a bearer of new truth.”

I think we can show how the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve do these things, but we can only know it by the power and companionship of the Holy Ghost (the later coming from the exercise of their keys). All someone has to do is describe how these servants of God taught him the truth, how they perceived hidden truth for his sake, and how they revealed new truth to him. This is not only accomplished by the doctrine, but by the commandments, covenants and ordinances which can only be obtained under proper authority.

[MiserereNobis]

Another difference is an open Canon and that if canonized, an encyclical has the force of scripture.

 

There's a parallel here, too.  The Bible/scripture is a closed canon, for sure, but in some sense the Catholic Church has an open canon.  The declarations of Ecumenical Councils and ex cathedra statements are fully binding on the whole Church and are unchangeable, so one can easily argue that they are part of canon.  We even call those declarations "canon."  In terms of doctrinal understanding, we give equal weight to the New Testament and, say, the canons of the Council of Trent.  One obvious difference is that the Bible is used for liturgy and the canons of the Councils are not.

Edited April 11, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

I agree that in LDS usage, the crux of the title “prophet, seer and revelator,” and for any that hold that title to actually be a prophet, seer and revelator, is to possess the keys of the kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet,_seer,_and_revelator

This is why I find the perception that the primary role of a prophet, seer and revelator as being to merely explain and expand upon doctrine (however arguably fallibly or not) very “scary” and limiting. From the article linked above, “A prophet is a teacher of known truth; a seer is a perceiver of hidden truth, a revelator is a bearer of new truth.”

I think we can show how the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve do these things, but we can only know it by the power and companionship of the Holy Ghost (the later coming from the exercise of their keys). All someone has to do is describe how these servants of God taught him the truth, how they perceived hidden truth for his sake, and how they revealed new truth to him. This is not only accomplished by the doctrine, but by the commandments, covenants and ordinances which can only be obtained under proper authority.

 

Interesting.  Thanks.  There seems to be some differing viewpoints on what the role of the prophet/seer/revelator is.

[Calm]

Interesting.  Thanks.  There seems to be some differing viewpoints on what the role of the prophet/seer/revelator is.

Why should that be different from anything else in the Church?

[CV75]

Interesting.  Thanks.  There seems to be some differing viewpoints on what the role of the prophet/seer/revelator is.

Mosiah 8:13-17 defines the term "seer". In summary, “a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.” And, “a seer is a revelator and a prophet also…”

Maybe I posted this lds.org link already, defining the term and providing a great deal of resources on the subject of “Prophets”: https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

[Kenngo1969]

LDS.org, “Guide to the Scriptures,” s.v. “Prophet” (last accessed today):

 

A person who has been called by and speaks for God. As a messenger of God, a prophet receives commandments, prophecies, and revelations from God. His responsibility is to make known God’s will and true character to mankind and to show the meaning of his dealings with them. A prophet denounces sin and foretells its consequences. He is a preacher of righteousness. On occasion, prophets may be inspired to foretell the future for the benefit of mankind. His primary responsibility, however, is to bear witness of Christ. The President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s prophet on earth today. Members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

 

 

LDS.org, “Guide to the Scriptures,” s.v. “Seer” (last accessed today):

 

A person authorized of God to see with spiritual eyes things which God has hidden from the world (Moses 6:35–38). He is a revelator and a prophet (Mosiah 8:13–16). In the Book of Mormon, Ammon taught that only a seer could use special interpreters, or a Urim and Thummim (Mosiah 8:13; 28:16). A seer knows the past, present, and future. Anciently, a prophet was often called a seer (1 Sam. 9:9; 2 Sam. 24:11).

 

Joseph Smith is the great seer of the latter days (D&C 21:1; 135:3). In addition, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

 

 

 

 

LDS.org, “Guide to the Scriptures,” s.v. “Revelation” (last accessed today):

 

Communication from God to his children on earth. Revelation may come through the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost by way of inspiration, visions, dreams, or visits by angels. Revelation provides guidance that can lead the faithful to eternal salvation in the celestial kingdom.

 

The Lord reveals his work to his prophets and confirms to believers that the revelations to the prophets are true (Amos 3:7). Through revelation, the Lord provides individual guidance for every person who seeks it and who has faith, repents, and is obedient to the gospel of Jesus Christ. “The Holy Ghost is a revelator,” said Joseph Smith, and “no man can receive the Holy Ghost without receiving revelations.”

 

In the Lord’s Church, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church and to the world. The President of the Church is the only one whom the Lord has authorized to receive revelation for the Church (D&C 28:2–7). Every person may receive personal revelation for his own benefit.

 

 

Perhaps I’m simply too easily satisfied in a world in which skepticism qua skepticism is considered to be among the highest of virtues by some, but I don’t see where President Thomas S. Monson and the rest of The Fifteen don’t fit those bills.  To each, his or her own.

[Kenngo1969]

Interesting.  Thanks.  There seems to be some differing viewpoints on what the role of the prophet/seer/revelator is.

 

Why should that be different from anything else in the Church?

 

C'mon, MiserereNobis, surely you've hung out long enough in this corner of cyberspace to know that if you want three different opinions on something related to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all you have to do is ask two different Mormons!

[MiserereNobis]

Why should that be different from anything else in the Church?

 

Or in any other Church?  Or any other thing in life? 

[MiserereNobis]

 

 

C'mon, MiserereNobis, surely you've hung out long enough in this corner of cyberspace to know that if you want three different opinions on something related to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all you have to do is ask two different Mormons!

 

Ha!

 

Sometimes I've wondered how representative this board is of Mormondom in general (sorry, Scott, Mormondom was just easier to write than "all of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ).  The Mormons I know in real life seem to be much more, um, conservative? old school? traditional?  I'm not quite sure the word I'm looking for.  They don't seem to question much and seem to have the simple answers always ready.  I'm not criticizing them -- we are friends -- it's just that I notice a big difference.  Maybe it's because people can be a little more open online.

 

Anyways, your comment made me giggle and is true in any Church.  Even though Catholicism has some pretty clear dogmas spelled out, most Catholics don't know what they are or don't believe them or don't follow them, which is a bummer but we are all humans, eh?  (except for Nehor, of course)

[Kenngo1969]

Ha!

 

Sometimes I've wondered how representative this board is of Mormondom in general (sorry, Scott, Mormondom was just easier to write than "all of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ).  The Mormons I know in real life seem to be much more, um, conservative? old school? traditional?  I'm not quite sure the word I'm looking for.  They don't seem to question much and seem to have the simple answers always ready.  I'm not criticizing them -- we are friends -- it's just that I notice a big difference.  Maybe it's because people can be a little more open online.

 

Anyways, your comment made me giggle and is true in any Church.  Even though Catholicism has some pretty clear dogmas spelled out, most Catholics don't know what they are or don't believe them or don't follow them, which is a bummer but we are all humans, eh?  (except for Nehor, of course)

I think, perhaps, that the last sentence in your first paragraph is a big part of the key.  Would that we could all truly see something as fundamental and weighty as church doctrine as it is; alas, Stephen R. Covey was right: We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are.  I'm grateful, as I'm sure you are, for those moments (rare though they may be, but their rarity simply is endemic to the human condition, I must confess) in which I see something with Holy-Spirit-inspired clarity.  Too often, we are prone to forget that we're not merely human beings put here on the earth to have occasional spiritual experiences; we're spiritual beings put here on the earth to have a human experience.

[canard78]

Ha!

 

Sometimes I've wondered how representative this board is of Mormondom in general (sorry, Scott, Mormondom was just easier to write than "all of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ).  The Mormons I know in real life seem to be much more, um, conservative? old school? traditional?  I'm not quite sure the word I'm looking for.  They don't seem to question much and seem to have the simple answers always ready.  I'm not criticizing them -- we are friends -- it's just that I notice a big difference.  Maybe it's because people can be a little more open online.

 

Anyways, your comment made me giggle and is true in any Church.  Even though Catholicism has some pretty clear dogmas spelled out, most Catholics don't know what they are or don't believe them or don't follow them, which is a bummer but we are all humans, eh?  (except for Nehor, of course)

 

You're right. This board is not remotely representative. But it's still an entertaining corner of the odd-balls (I don't exclude myself from that label)

[Avatar4321]

Yes. They are.

 

You can be one too in your scope of personal influence.

 

In fact, we prophecy in Church all the time. We even have a sunday every month dedicated to it.

[seed]

Thoughts?

 

very well presented idea.   thanks!

[mfbukowski]

 

 

C'mon, MiserereNobis, surely you've hung out long enough in this corner of cyberspace to know that if you want three different opinions on something related to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all you have to do is ask two different Mormons!

Heck I could probably give 6 or 7 all by myself! 

[mormonnewb]

Perhaps I’m simply too easily satisfied in a world in which skepticism qua skepticism is considered to be among the highest of virtues by some, but I don’t see where President Thomas S. Monson and the rest of The Fifteen don’t fit those bills. To each, his or her own.

Then please tell me PRECISELY how President Monson fits one of these bills for you. For instance, as the only person authorized to receive revelation for the Church, is there some revelation (or proclamation) issued that made you think, "Now, THAT was from The Lord"?

I haven't seen anything like that, but maybe it's because I just got here. Or maybe it's because I don't know what to look for.

Edited April 12, 2014 by mormonnewb

[canard78]

Hmm. I've thought about these ideas before and commented in a thread awhile back, but it seems like what most Mormons mean by "prophet, seer, and revelator" today would actually apply to the Popes of the Catholic Church as well. The Pope writes encyclicals that are sent out to the entire world. They are solemn declarations of doctrine, discipline, morals, and faith. The most recent one was proclaimed on June 29, 2013, and is called Lumen Fidei, the Light of Faith (the encyclicals are titled after their first two or three words in Latin). This seems to be very similar to general conference addresses. These encyclicals are declaring, testifying, explaining, and expanding on things and are tailoring them to our current time and needs.

If you said, "the president of the LDS church has the authority to explain and expand upon the doctrines revealed by Joseph Smith and passed down faithfully since then, as well as in rare occasions to solemnly declare something an official doctrine (like OD-1 and OD-2)" you would be saying almost the exact thing we say about the Pope: "The Pope has the authority to explain and expand upon the doctrines revealed to the Apostles and passed down faithfully since then, as well as in rare occasions to solemnly declare a dogma (the last one being the Assumption of Mary, which was solemnly declared, ex cathedra, as dogma in 1950)."

So, the Pope explains the doctrines to us in ways that match our current problems, needs, and understandings. That sounds very much what you are claiming that the president and apostles do in conference. The Pope can also declare something to a be a doctrine that is then binding upon Catholics to believe. That sounds very much like what presidents of the church can do.

Popes have also affirmed that they rarely speak infallibly, but the Church teaches that we are to give their words "due respect" because of their office. Only when they speak infallibly and proclaim dogma ex cathedra must we give unconditional "assent." It seems like this is a current battle raging in the LDS church, or at least on this board, ha, as concerns talks given in general conference! Whenever the Pope speaks, I give his words due respect because he is the Pope and is most likely right in what he says, but there is also room for me to wrestle with the teachings and even, perhaps, disagree, because he is not speaking ex cathedra. In fact, there are instances in Church history where a Pope has taught a doctrine, but not infallibly, and that doctrine has later been declared as false.

It seems to me that when the LDS church says that it has modern-day prophets who receive modern-day revelations (and I am excepting Joseph Smith here), there is little practical difference from the Catholic Church. However, the words "prophets" and "revelations" are pretty heady, and give people the idea that the president and apostles are speaking the literal words of God on a regular basis, like the prophets in the Bible. Of course, we claim that the Pope is the "Vicar of Christ" and that's a pretty heady statement, too.

I'll sum up by saying that if we ignore the semantics and the terms, and look at the practicalities involved (oh my, I'm being a pragmatist now), in practice, the LDS church and the Catholic Church seem to operate the same when it comes to "modern-day revelation." So, Mormons perhaps should not say that they are the only church that claims to receive revelation, since the Catholic Church claims the same (though terminology differs). In other words, since Joseph Smith's time, the LDS church is not as unique in this matter as some people seem to claim. The uniqueness lies in your claim that the president of the church has authority and the Pope does not, but not in the fact that you claim modern-day revelation and other churches do not.

Thoughts?

I think this is a very accurate and mature perspective. I hope that Mormonism in the future uses this kind of approach. It is far more realistic and representative.

To say "when the prophet speaks it is as if the Lord is speaking" (restated just last weekend) is terribly problematic, especially when we sustain all 15 as prophets. It simply doesn't carry. I believe Elder Holland's words were very much his own. He is a former friend of Tom Phillips (JRH set TP apart as a stake president). TP took the church to court for fraud just 4 weeks ago. I think, in JRH's talk, we saw a human reaction. One I can empathise with when I try to put in the TP context. I can't believe that JRH was speaking "as if God was speaking."

When the most recent pope was selected, some Mormon friends made a few snide remarks about "they're choosing the next pope, I'm glad my church lets God decide." I tried to point out that the selection of a new apostle ("prophet") is almost identical to the selection of a pope. A group of men sit in a room with a list of possible candidates, they probably deliberate and discuss for some time and seek divine guidance while they do. I see no reason why God would not answer the sincere prayers of the catholic leaders.

I consider the new pope to be an inspired choice. I would even go as far as to say I had "holy envy" for your leader. I think he is doing more to turn people to Christ than other religious leaders have for a long time (Mormon leaders included). That doesn't make me want to be Catholic but it does make me grateful for Catholics. Thank you for helping us say "on the other hand..."

[canard78]

Then please tell me PRECISELY how President Monson fits one of these bills for you. For instance, as the only person authorized to receive revelation for the Church, is there some revelation (or proclamation) issued that made you think, "Now, THAT was from The Lord"?

I haven't seen anything like that, but maybe it's because I just got here. Or maybe it's because I don't know what to look for.

Last year I was in a Sunday School class and the teacher asked:

"Is the revelation leaders receive today any different to the prophets in times past?"

The class dutifully agreed that there was no difference. The teacher then asked:

"What are some of the revelations the prophet has received lately."

There was an awkward silence before the class cobbled together:

- Age change for missionaries

- General Women's meeting

- The new call to "hasten the work"

I bit my tongue. I wanted to point out that their list amounted to a couple of administrative changes (which no one has claimed to have been done by revelation) and a marketing slogan (quite possibly dreamt up by a well-paid branding agency in Salt Lake).