Are They Really "prophets, Seers & Revelators?"

[Avatar4321]

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?

 

i highly recommend reading the conference addresses. You will learn of quite a few.

[mfbukowski]

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?

Wait until you are a bishop with no counselors.

[MiserereNobis]

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

 

Ok.  But the calling of the apostles could be somewhat analagous to the election of a Pope, yes?  And aren't apostles sustained as prophets, too?

 

In Catholicism, we could equally say that God has the ability to influence a conclave through "calling home."  If He doesn't want a certain person to be the Pope, He certainly could kill him before, during, or after the election (I've actually heard some Catholics speculate on this as concerns the papacy of Pope John Paul I, since he died 30 something days after his coronation.)

 

The idea that someone is called by God simply because God didn't kill him or her off seems rather problematic, in the sense that it can be applied to basically any church, religion, organization, whatever.

 

I could say that the fact that a particular professor taught me a particular class of philosophy is God's specific will, because if God wanted to, He could have killed the professor.  It's even more problematic to go to the next step, and say that since God did not kill that professor, God obviously had called him to be my teacher.

Edited April 13, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[why me]

"I know that the Brethren are truly prophets, seers and revelators because

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....Plato's_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."

[why me]

Ok.  But the calling of the apostles could be somewhat analagous to the election of a Pope, yes?  And aren't apostles sustained as prophets, too?

 

In Catholicism, we could equally say that God has the ability to influence a conclave through "calling home."  If He doesn't want a certain person to be the Pope, He certainly could kill him before, during, or after the election (I've actually heard some Catholics speculate on this as concerns the papacy of Pope John Paul I, since he died 30 something days after his coronation.)

 

The idea that someone is called by God simply because God didn't kill him or her off seems rather problematic, in the sense that it can be applied to basically any church, religion, organization, whatever.

 

I could say that the fact that a particular professor taught me a particular class of philosophy is God's specific will, because if God wanted to, He could have killed the professor.  It's even more problematic to go to the next step, and say that since God did not kill that professor, God obviously had called him to be my teacher.

And thus we have the problem. For the lds, the prophet is the leader of the church. For catholics it is the pope even though he is not called a prophet. And it seems that some catholics can say that the pope does not receive revelation nor is he the spokesperson of god. It all comes down to faith because in both instances the lds leaders of the past and the popes of the past have said some crazy things. 

Edited April 13, 2014 by why me

[MiserereNobis]

And thus we have the problem. For the lds, the prophet is the leader of the church. For catholics it is the pope even though he is not called a prophet. And it seems that some catholics can say that the pope does not receive revelation nor is he the spokesperson of god. It all comes down to faith because in both instances the lds leaders of the past and the popes of the past have said some crazy things. 

 

Well, honestly part of the purpose of my post that you responded to is to elaborate on the idea that the LDS idea of modern-day revelation and modern-day prophets is not as unique as some believe it is.  In practice (except for Joseph Smith), the LDS church and the Catholic Church seem to be very similar when it comes to the ideas of the leadership being led by God.  When Mormons say that their church is the only one that claims to have prophets and modern-day revelation, I believe (from what I've seen here) the claim is based on semantics and not on the actuality of the situation.  If we change terminology, the Catholic Church and Mormons are basically saying the same thing about their leadership.

 

ETA:  When (knowledgable) Catholics say that the Pope is not a prophet and that he does not receive revelation, they are using those words with specific Catholic definitions.  Again, the practicalities of the LDS prophet and the Catholic Pope seem very very similar.  So, as I said in a previous post, perhaps Mormons shouldn't say that theirs is the only church that claims modern-day revelation, but should instead focus on the claim that Mormon revelation is more authentic (?) because of authority and apostasy.

Edited April 13, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[mormonnewb]

"I know that the Brethren are truly prophets, seers and revelators because

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....Plato's_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."

I agree that the prophets have kept a steady course. And part of me thinks that perhaps that's what the Church needs at this time -- course stayers. On the other hand, it's hard to see how ANY group of 15 senior citizens is going to be particularly "radical." Once again, perhaps that works perfectly into HF's plan. He needs a slow and steady church and therefore, He has installed a slow and steady leadership structure.

There is certainly nothing that requires HF to accomplish His objectives the hard way, although for a "thick-necked" person like me, it does make it easier to see that He is at work.

Edited April 13, 2014 by mormonnewb

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Admittedly, I am not LDS- but I will offer my view anyways...

I believe that they are prophets... "The testimony of Christ is the spirit of prophecy". I believe they do their best to bring people to Christ through their testimonies.

I believe some could, if JAH so chooses, bring forth revelation, thus becoming, for a moment, a Revelator. But I believe that about any number of Jesus believing Christians.

I believe that perhaps some day, one of them could be called upon the receive the Interpreters and become a Seer. But JAH could just as easily choose one outside of their number. I do not believe there is a Seer presently on the Earth.

I do not see the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators as Priesthood callings, but as gifts bestowed at various times and for JAH's own purpose on whomsoever He so chooses. I believe JAH will first come to those with the keys to become those things or exercise those gifts (restored priesthood) unless we have so disqualified ourselves through disobedience that He must choose some other people.

The only callings those men would have are as Presidents and Apostles.

[why me]

I agree that the prophets have kept a steady course. And part of me thinks that perhaps that's what the Church needs at this time -- course stayers. On the other hand, it's hard to see how ANY group of 15 senior citizens is going to be particularly "radical." Once again, perhaps that works perfectly into HF's plan. He needs a slow and steady church and therefore, He has installed a slow and steady leadership structure.

There is certainly nothing that requires HF to accomplish His objectives the hard way, although for a "thick-necked" person like me, it does make it easier to see that He is at work.

I am going to give you a personal opinion about yourself. I think that you are most likely a nice guy who happens to find himself mormon. I also have this problem. However, I think that for the both of us there was probably a spiritual experience involved.

 

But I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I think that you are rather negative in your thinking. For example, what does it mean to be radical? Actually, these senior citizens who in a year or two will be wheeled out to pasture are quite radical when you consider that fact that what they stand for is actually quite unique these days. And their understanding about how to do life is rather radical now. Instead of seeing the church's glass half empty, maybe it would be better to see it half full and remember why you are a mormon and what made you to become one. .

Edited April 13, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Well, honestly part of the purpose of my post that you responded to is to elaborate on the idea that the LDS idea of modern-day revelation and modern-day prophets is not as unique as some believe it is.  In practice (except for Joseph Smith), the LDS church and the Catholic Church seem to be very similar when it comes to the ideas of the leadership being led by God.  When Mormons say that their church is the only one that claims to have prophets and modern-day revelation, I believe (from what I've seen here) the claim is based on semantics and not on the actuality of the situation.  If we change terminology, the Catholic Church and Mormons are basically saying the same thing about their leadership.

 

ETA:  When (knowledgable) Catholics say that the Pope is not a prophet and that he does not receive revelation, they are using those words with specific Catholic definitions.  Again, the practicalities of the LDS prophet and the Catholic Pope seem very very similar.  So, as I said in a previous post, perhaps Mormons shouldn't say that theirs is the only church that claims modern-day revelation, but should instead focus on the claim that Mormon revelation is more authentic (?) because of authority and apostasy.

I can only infer from what I get with my catholic friends and from my experience on the catholic board. On the catholic board, catholics are constantly bringing up the past through a series of pasting past quotes of mormon leaders. By doing so, they are attempting to demonstrate that god would not say such things. However, they tend to downplay what the popes have said because they claim that they are not acting as prophets but fallible men. Also, they don't seem to believe in revelation or that the pope can receive revelation. I was quite surprised about this because when I was young I was led to believe as a nice catholic boy that the pope is god's representative on earth. And so, I would agree with you about the practicalities of the two. But try telling that to the catholic board and see what happens.

[mfbukowski]

Ok.  But the calling of the apostles could be somewhat analagous to the election of a Pope, yes?  And aren't apostles sustained as prophets, too?

 

In Catholicism, we could equally say that God has the ability to influence a conclave through "calling home."  If He doesn't want a certain person to be the Pope, He certainly could kill him before, during, or after the election (I've actually heard some Catholics speculate on this as concerns the papacy of Pope John Paul I, since he died 30 something days after his coronation.)

 

The idea that someone is called by God simply because God didn't kill him or her off seems rather problematic, in the sense that it can be applied to basically any church, religion, organization, whatever.

 

I could say that the fact that a particular professor taught me a particular class of philosophy is God's specific will, because if God wanted to, He could have killed the professor.  It's even more problematic to go to the next step, and say that since God did not kill that professor, God obviously had called him to be my teacher.

On this logic one could say that the process is the same for calling a cardinal is the same as the LDS calling an apostle.  Which is fine with me.  At this point it is all semantics.

 

But there is no parallel in Catholicism for the custom of how presidents of the church are called.  We are all "prophets" in that we all have a testimony of Jesus Christ- the scriptural definition of prophet. 

 

I don't think your professor analogy holds up.

 

Any of the 12 would be worthy to be president- it is just a good excuse to select the most experienced.

Edited April 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Well, honestly part of the purpose of my post that you responded to is to elaborate on the idea that the LDS idea of modern-day revelation and modern-day prophets is not as unique as some believe it is.  In practice (except for Joseph Smith), the LDS church and the Catholic Church seem to be very similar when it comes to the ideas of the leadership being led by God.  When Mormons say that their church is the only one that claims to have prophets and modern-day revelation, I believe (from what I've seen here) the claim is based on semantics and not on the actuality of the situation.  If we change terminology, the Catholic Church and Mormons are basically saying the same thing about their leadership.

 

ETA:  When (knowledgable) Catholics say that the Pope is not a prophet and that he does not receive revelation, they are using those words with specific Catholic definitions.  Again, the practicalities of the LDS prophet and the Catholic Pope seem very very similar.  So, as I said in a previous post, perhaps Mormons shouldn't say that theirs is the only church that claims modern-day revelation, but should instead focus on the claim that Mormon revelation is more authentic (?) because of authority and apostasy.

I am sure we will honor Catholic "revelation" when Catholics honor our baptisms.

 

I have repeatedly said that the differences are largely semantic on this level; the real problem is pervasive Neoplatonism.  That is not a semantic difference.

 

The catch 22 is that most Mormons and most Catholics don't understand this real distinction in our theologies and so they fixate on the semantic ones and so you end up with purely semantic discussions which go nowhere, Like this one.

[mfbukowski]

I can only infer from what I get with my catholic friends and from my experience on the catholic board. On the catholic board, catholics are constantly bringing up the past through a series of pasting past quotes of mormon leaders. By doing so, they are attempting to demonstrate that god would not say such things. However, they tend to downplay what the popes have said because they claim that they are not acting as prophets but fallible men. Also, they don't seem to believe in revelation or that the pope can receive revelation. I was quite surprised about this because when I was young I was led to believe as a nice catholic boy that the pope is god's representative on earth. And so, I would agree with you about the practicalities of the two. But try telling that to the catholic board and see what happens.

Exactly.

 

In fact that's essentially what I said above.

[canard78]

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!

 

It would appear so. I see no reason why God wouldn't answer their sincere prayer. The Pope has a massive influence on spreading the gospel of Christ.

 

"...cardinals earlier chanted and prayed for divine guidance as they prepared for a conclave to choose a pontiff who will face one of the most difficult periods in the Church's history."

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291993/Papal-conclave-Cardinals-locked-inside-Sistine-Chapel-start-conclave-elect-new-pope.html#ixzz2ykQH9MQZ 

 

 

"Cardinals prayed in St Peter's Basilica on Tuesday ahead of a conclave to elect the next pope "...May Our Father hear and answer with love and mercy all prayers and sacrifices offered for fruitful outcome. God bless!" South African cardinal Wilfrid Napier said."

 

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/cardinals-pray-ahead-of-historic-papal-election-341435 

 

“We pray for each and every cardinal in his decision taking,” Archbishop Nichols said in a letter distributed to Roman Catholic parishes and schools.

“They are striving to be, first of all, instruments of God, in some ways like pens in the hand of the Lord. We pray for them that they will respond freely and sensitively to the hand that moves them, the mind that directs them.”

 

(emphasis mine)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pray-for-cardinals-as-they-elect-new-pope-archbishop-of-westminster-urges-british-catholics-8528823.html

[canard78]

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.

 

I've also heard it said that someone called it a revelation and later corrected themselves - but I've never seen the original source. I've also heard that Pres. Monson specifically said it was a policy change and not a revelation... but I've never seen the OS for that either!

[canard78]

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.

 

I'm curious to know whether you think it possible to receive that personal spirit of prophecy/revelation and reach a different conclusion. That is, to pray and be taught that a prophet is not "speaking as if God is speaking" and that their words are their own? In other words, can the spirit of prophecy teach me the opposite of what it teaches you?

[canard78]

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.

 

Thanks - that's far more informative than my scatter-gun news article response.

[canard78]

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.

 

What? An educated socialist Mormon? Surely the three can't coexist. The universe would implode or something!

[canard78]

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.

 

Wait... prophets will only teach people if they are willing to listen? That's a new one on me. Lehi, Jeremiah, Noah all suggest otherwise.

[canard78]

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

 

 

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

 

Seriously?

 

Did you read in haste?

 

I specifically said apostle... who, once called, is sustained as a "prophet, seer and revelator."

 

I know very well how "The" prophet (or the President) is called. It's basically a question of seniority and longevity.

[canard78]

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

 

I never said that

[canard78]

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.

 

It is proposed that we sustain Thomas Spencer Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day... It is proposed that we sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

 

Every six months you sustain all 15 as prophets, seers, and revelators and Thomas S Monson (or his predecessor) as President of the church.

 

So you accurately describe the process for calling the next president of the church, not process for calling the next prophet, seer and revelator.

 

When the next member of the 15 dies, the next prophet, seer and revalator will be called through a a discussion and prayer process among the remaining 14.

[mormonnewb]

I am going to give you a personal opinion about yourself. I think that you are most likely a nice guy who happens to find himself mormon. I also have this problem. However, I think that for the both of us there was probably a spiritual experience involved.

 

But I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I think that you are rather negative in your thinking. For example, what does it mean to be radical? Actually, these senior citizens who in a year or two will be wheeled out to pasture are quite radical when you consider that fact that what they stand for is actually quite unique these days. And their understanding about how to do life is rather radical now. Instead of seeing the church's glass half empty, maybe it would be better to see it half full and remember why you are a mormon and what made you to become one. .

I'm not sure how what I stated was "negative" but to answer your point: It is NOT radical for any group of old white men to be opposed to SSM, modern music and film, and the "women's movement." In fact, if you can find 15 such men who don't agree with the Brethren on these issues, then THAT would be the miraculous sign I'm looking for.

[CV75]

I'm not sure how what I stated was "negative" but to answer your point: It is NOT radical for any group of old white men to be opposed to SSM, modern music and film, and the "women's movement." In fact, if you can find 15 such men who don't agree with the Brethren on these issues, then THAT would be the miraculous sign I'm looking for.

That's easy--just Google gay retirement communities, and these groups of old men are not considered radical either.

Edited April 13, 2014 by CV75

[wtrdog]

i highly recommend reading the conference addresses. You will learn of quite a few.

Would you be so kind as to point out just one for me?