Are They Really "prophets, Seers & Revelators?"

[teddyaware]

Deleted

Edited April 12, 2014 by teddyaware

[Calm]

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).

I am positive I have read one news report quoting an apostle stating the age change was a revelation (though there was studying it out through trials in various countries), but I can't find it. I was surprised it was called such which is why I don't believe it is a false memory.

[Duncan]

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..."

 

 

i don't know for sure but do the Cardinals pray to know who the next Pope is? I see what you are saying, I don't know!

[Senator]

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).

 

Every time I hear the "the Lord is hastening the work" mantra, the first thing that comes to my mind is, "He must be behind schedule".

[ERayR]

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.

 

They are but that doesn't help you at all if you don't accept them as such.

[MiserereNobis]

i don't know for sure but do the Cardinals pray to know who the next Pope is? I see what you are saying, I don't know!

 

Yes, absolutely.  In addition to Mass, there are also specific prayers, including a traditional hymn (Veni Creator Spiritus) invoking the Holy Ghost.

 

The wikipedia article on Papal Conclaves (the election of a Pope) is pretty informative.

[teddyaware]

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.

Here is your answer: Unless a man becomes a prophet in his own right (a prophet unto himself) he will never be able to perceive that the Spirit of revelation is alive, well, and as shinning brightly as ever in today's Restored Church of Christ. That man who wants to be spiritually spoon-fed by others (i.e. expects to live on borrowed light without engaging in diligent and faith-filled scripture study and prayer) will always remain in the unfortunate position of being one who is placed right in the midst of God's powerful revelatory light, but because of self-imposed spiritual blindness remains unable to perceive that which is already brightly shinning all around him.

21 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not. (D&C6)

 

Alma and the Son's of Mosiah show us how we can become prophets or prophetess in our own right:

2 Now these sons of Mosiah were with Alma at the time the angel first appeared unto him; therefore Almadid rejoice exceedingly to see his brethren; and what added more to his joy, they were still his brethren in the Lord; yea, and they had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God.

3 But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God. (Alma 17)

 

There is no other way. Follow the sterling examples of these men of God, or expect to remain oblivious to the light and power of the God of Revelation that still shines brilliantly today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited April 12, 2014 by teddyaware

[why me]

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.

 

 

Do you know the Mormons of Europe? You may find it difficult to find old school mormons or for that matter conservative mormons. I know mormons in europe who are socialists and greens. And most are very educated. And why should they constantly go around questioning their faith. Why not just live it? I think that it is more important to question the direction of society and the way governments are leading the society in certain directions. And what religious people are walking around questioning their faith? Certainly not catholics or many protestants. Most people are just going to church and trying to be the best they can be with the understandings that they have.

[why me]

I think that the GAs have led people in the right directions in terms of what god wishes for all of us and in how to do life. They have kept a pretty steady course where many churches have faltered. I hear nothing coming from them that would lead a person away from god. Just the opposite. Chasity, love, kindness, brotherhood and sisterhood, how we were spirit children of heavenly parents and how we should honor our parents both earthly parents and heavenly parents and that we are children of god. I see nothing wrong in the way they help us all to do life. Does this make them seers and prophets? Perhaps. And the church has a strong community of people, striving and rooting for each other on this earth.

 

Personally, being a young adult in NYC during the sexual revolution of the 70s, the law of chasity was perhaps a lifesaver for me. Not to mention keeping the body holy. I never would have thought that a killer virus was incumbating in so many bodies, both hetero and gay. I count my lucky stars that I stayed away from Plato's Retreat.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_Retreat

 

I see nothing that the GAs say would lead people away from god. And when we consider that the critics say that the church was founded by an evil man, a fraudster, a slimeball, and a swindler. Well, I just don't know how a church with such an evil foundation as the critics claim can become a church of such goodness. Something is not adding up. Of course, the critics are wrong and maybe that is why it doesn't add up.

Edited April 12, 2014 by why me

[CV75]

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.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/04/examples-of-righteousness?lang=eng

 

At a certain point in this talk, which was his first in the Priesthood Session as President of the Church, I knew spiritually that what President Monson said was from the Lord; I saw it in his face, heard it in his voice, and felt it in his demeanor.

 

"Knowing what to look for" is nothing more than faith, because it takes faith to actually find it (Alma 32, faith/knowledge).

[wtrdog]

Only if they are prophesying, seeing, and revelating.  Has this happened since 1978?  Given that it only happens about once/century these days I would say the answer to the OP's question is NO.  Or at the least, they shouldn't be talked up as such.  Reality doesn't match the expectations of the hype.  Stake Patriarch does more prophesying than they do.

[Mystery Meat]

They are but that doesn't help you at all if you don't accept them as such.

 

Perfect answer IMO. It reminded me of a principal taught nicely in the Book of Mormon. The Liahona as we know, is a symbol of the word of God. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Liahona only worked as well as Lehi and his family gave heed to it. I submit, that they are indeed prophets, seers, and revelators, BUT if they do not work for us it is ONLY because we don't treat them as such, thereby ignoring them or seeing no need to listen to them. Its much easier to justify not caring what they say when you don't believe they are prophets in the same way Moses, Jeremiah, Daniel, Lehi or even Joseph Smith were prophets.

 

I mean we have people on this board who more or less refuse to do either of the two things Elder Ballard asked us to do (name of the Church and invite others to meet with the missionaries) and yet we expect the Lord to be revealing all of these great things. Why? Because we want proof, or at least evidence that they are prophets, seers and revelators. Perhaps the first proof we need is to start doing our hometeaching more consistently, magnifying our callings, and actually studying the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

 

I am willing to wager that there are plenty of things that the Lord would love to reveal. But what, I ask, have we done as a people to show we are worthy of the revelations he COULD send through His prophets, seers, and revelators when some of us don't even believe they are prophets and MOST of the rest of us (myself included) can't even be bothered to refer to HIS Church as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

My two cents. Gives me something to think about at least.

Edited April 12, 2014 by lvjd66

[ERayR]

Only if they are prophesying, seeing, and revelating.  Has this happened since 1978?  Given that it only happens about once/century these days I would say the answer to the OP's question is NO.  Or at the least, they shouldn't be talked up as such.  Reality doesn't match the expectations of the hype.  Stake Patriarch does more prophesying than they do.

 

And with that attitude you will never know when they do or what it is.  Your expressions bring to mind something about "stoning the prophets"

[mormonnewb]

Here is your answer: Unless a man becomes a prophet in his own right (a prophet unto himself) he will never be able to perceive that the Spirit of revelation is alive, well, and as shinning brightly as ever in today's Restored Church of Christ. That man who wants to be spiritually spoon-fed by others (i.e. expects to live on borrowed light without engaging in diligent and faith-filled scripture study and prayer) will always remain in the unfortunate position of being one who is placed right in the midst of God's powerful revelatory light, but because of self-imposed spiritual blindness remains unable to perceive that which is already brightly shinning all around him.

21 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not. (D&C6)

Alma and the Son's of Mosiah show us how we can become prophets or prophetess in our own right:

2 Now these sons of Mosiah were with Alma at the time the angel first appeared unto him; therefore Almadid rejoice exceedingly to see his brethren; and what added more to his joy, they were still his brethren in the Lord; yea, and they had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God.

3 But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God. (Alma 17)

There is no other way. Follow the sterling examples of these men of God, or expect to remain oblivious to the light and power of the God of Revelation that still shines brilliantly today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So if I become a prophet in my own right, then why would I need the counsel of "co-prophets?" And certainly, why would I defer to them?

[mormonnewb]

They are but that doesn't help you at all if you don't accept them as such.

The Lochness Monster is real but that doesn't help you at all if you don't accept her as such.

Not convinced? O Ye of little faith!

I'm not asking for conclusive PROOF. That's not possible. I simply want to know how many of you fill in the blank when you say, "I know that the Brethren are truly prophets, seers and revelators because ___________."

[mormonnewb]

Perfect answer IMO. It reminded me of a principal taught nicely in the Book of Mormon. The Liahona as we know, is a symbol of the word of God. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Liahona only worked as well as Lehi and his family gave heed to it. I submit, that they are indeed prophets, seers, and revelators, BUT if they do not work for us it is ONLY because we don't treat them as such, thereby ignoring them or seeing no need to listen to them. Its much easier to justify not caring what they say when you don't believe they are prophets in the same way Moses, Jeremiah, Daniel, Lehi or even Joseph Smith were prophets.

I mean we have people on this board who more or less refuse to do either of the two things Elder Ballard asked us to do (name of the Church and invite others to meet with the missionaries) and yet we expect the Lord to be revealing all of these great things. Why? Because we want proof, or at least evidence that they are prophets, seers and revelators. Perhaps the first proof we need is to start doing our hometeaching more consistently, magnifying our callings, and actually studying the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

I am willing to wager that there are plenty of things that the Lord would love to reveal. But what, I ask, have we done as a people to show we are worthy of the revelations he COULD send through His prophets, seers, and revelators when some of us don't even believe they are prophets and MOST of the rest of us (myself included) can't even be bothered to refer to HIS Church as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

My two cents. Gives me something to think about at least.

As I read scripture, The Lord raises up prophets BECAUSE of their disobedience of the people; not because of their righteousness. I can't think of a single OT prophet who stood before the people and said, "Because of your righteousness, The Lord has called upon me to praise you and give you further truth and knowledge." If they had, I suspect they might not have been killed so often. Edited April 13, 2014 by mormonnewb

[wtrdog]

And with that attitude you will never know when they do or what it is.  Your expressions bring to mind something about "stoning the prophets"

That's quite vicious. How does my not being aware of any revelations since '78 make me a murder enthusiast? While you're at it can you point out which one I'm missing? Not sure how I'd miss out by having the attitude that it's not a revelation unless they say it is?

[mfbukowski]

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.

This is not accurate at all.  I presume by now this has been corrected by someone.

[mfbukowski]

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).

So precisely what previous revelations would you like to compare these to which are certified original revelations by say Isaiah?

 

Was he even a real person?

[MiserereNobis]

This is not accurate at all.  I presume by now this has been corrected by someone.

 

What part are you referring to that is not accurate?  I posted about the Catholic procedures of the conclave.  Or are you referring to the way an LDS apostle is chosen?  Please do elaborate.

Edited April 13, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

Does no one here know how a new prophet is called?

 

Seriously?

[mfbukowski]

i don't know for sure but do the Cardinals pray to know who the next Pope is? I see what you are saying, I don't know!

Since Brigham Young the prophet is the senior member of the Q of 12.

 

That means God has 11 chances to "veto" any given person inline for the position, by calling them home before they become the senior member.

 

There is no sitting in a room and discussing who the successor should be.  Yes there could be an exception but it has never happened.

[Avatar4321]

Only if they are prophesying, seeing, and revelating.  Has this happened since 1978?  Given that it only happens about once/century these days I would say the answer to the OP's question is NO.  Or at the least, they shouldn't be talked up as such.  Reality doesn't match the expectations of the hype.  Stake Patriarch does more prophesying than they do.

 

Are you sure about that? It could simply mean you don't know what prophecying is.

[Avatar4321]

So if I become a prophet in my own right, then why would I need the counsel of "co-prophets?" And certainly, why would I defer to them?

 

Because they have authority over you.

[mfbukowski]

What part are you referring to that is not accurate?  I posted about the Catholic procedures of the conclave.  Or are you referring to the way an LDS apostle is chosen?  Please do elaborate.

See above.

 

Calling a new apostle was erroneously conflated with calling a new president of the church.

 

Apostles are called by inspired discussion, perhaps, while the president of the church is not

Edited April 13, 2014 by mfbukowski