Are They Really "prophets, Seers & Revelators?"

[why me]

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.

Okay, let me try this again: the old white men represent a church. This church and its members who support the church do too. In that case, the lds church is a radical church because it dares to challenge the common refrain about SSM. In fact the proclamation on the family is extremely radical when compared the modern take on the family. Those old white men are not representing themselves but an entire church body.

 

Referring to the GAs as old white men is rather negative. I could perhaps find the same decription on exmormon boards. But at least they are not angry old white men.

Edited April 13, 2014 by why me

[Coreyb]

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?

Yeah, that's what Denver Snuffer and Paul Toscano did.

[Calm]

 

Referring to the GAs as old white men is rather negative.

Since there is nothing inherently wrong with being old or white, I don't see the label as negative if it is accurate. Given the racial makeup and given that all but three are in their 70s, 80s or 90s and the other three are in their 60s, it seems to me it likely meets the label except for those who would debate 60s these days is more middle age than old.

Context matters of course and there can be cases where all being white and old are presented as being a very big negative.

[ChristKnight]

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 another thing that gets people is the issue of "public revelation", i.e. the belief that there is to be no more public revelation, though "private" revelations, such as those you mentioned, still occur, God still speaks to His children, etc.  Some LDS would say that they believe that "public revelation" is supposed to continue, but perhaps this is another terminology issue, where the Catholic and LDS are not speaking of the same thing when they talk about "public revelation".  What do you think "public revelation" is referring to?  I've defined it before as what is necessary to be saved, which is personified in Jesus Christ.  So, all that is necessary to receive eternal life has already been revealed, and the "requirements" for eternal life don't change (i.e. tomorrow the Pope can't announce that washing in the blood of a lamb is necessary for salvation).  What do you think? 

 

But yes, it is interesting that Catholicism does have prophets and prophetesses (even though they may not be referred to as such, functionally they are), and that inspiration from God through the Holy Spirit is an important concept in various aspects of Catholicism (i.e. Councils, Papal Infallibility, personal inspiration, etc). 

[cinepro]

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. .

 

Being in a minority doesn't automatically make you a "radical". 

Edited April 13, 2014 by cinepro

[mormonnewb]

 

Referring to the GAs as old white men is rather negative. I could perhaps find the same decription on exmormon boards. But at least they are not angry old white men.

Please forgive me. To not "offend," let's describe the group demographic as "15 Caucasian men who are, on average, 70+ years old."

The Brethren's views on social issues is PRECISELY in line with this demographic. Now, this demographic is not in line with the rest of society but that is ALMOST always the case. It's why people often say, "Progress happens one funeral at a time."

[JLHPROF]

The Brethren's views on social issues is PRECISELY in line with this demographic. Now, this demographic is not in line with the rest of society but that is ALMOST always the case. It's why people often say, "Progress happens one funeral at a time."

 

"Progress" might not be what actually happens.  Society's standard is certainly not where I would like to see the Church head.

Actually, this leads me to another thought...maybe I'll start a new thread...

[why me]

Since there is nothing inherently wrong with being old or white, I don't see the label as negative if it is accurate. Given the racial makeup and given that all but three are in their 70s, 80s or 90s and the other three are in their 60s, it seems to me it likely meets the label except for those who would debate 60s these days is more middle age than old.

Context matters of course and there can be cases where all being white and old are presented as being a very big negative.

I have seen mormonnewb posts before which deal with race. He could have just said old men. No reason to bring race into it. This is what I considered to be a negative. And I think that that was his context: race also matters.

[why me]

Please forgive me. To not "offend," let's describe the group demographic as "15 Caucasian men who are, on average, 70+ years old."

The Brethren's views on social issues is PRECISELY in line with this demographic. Now, this demographic is not in line with the rest of society but that is ALMOST always the case. It's why people often say, "Progress happens one funeral at a time."

Why play the race card? You do have a habit of playing the race card at times. Much better to leave race out of it. Maybe just old men would have been enough.

[why me]

Being in a minority doesn't automatically make you a "radical". 

But the views do. The proclamation of the family is quite radical for today. Maybe not so if the 50s. But now in the 21st century it is a radical document laying the groundwork for the family. It seems to go against the message of the media and some special interest groups.

[ERayR]

Please forgive me. To not "offend," let's describe the group demographic as "15 Caucasian men who are, on average, 70+ years old."

The Brethren's views on social issues is PRECISELY in line with this demographic. Now, this demographic is not in line with the rest of society but that is ALMOST always the case. It's why people often say, "Progress happens one funeral at a time."

 

Since when did it become the Churches resposibility to fall in line with the rest of society.  Insert something here about a great and spacious building.

[wtrdog]

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

 

Do you have a different definition?

 

 

 

proph·e·cy

  [prof-uh-see]  Show IPA

noun, plural proph·e·cies.

1.

the foretelling or prediction of what is to come.

2.

something that is declared by a prophet, especially a divinely inspired prediction, instruction, orexhortation.

3.

a divinely inspired utterance or revelation: oracular prophecies.

4.

the action, function, or faculty of a prophet.

[wtrdog]

Since when did it become the Churches resposibility to fall in line with the rest of society.  Insert something here about a great and spacious building.

 

It certainly doesn't, but he's making a legitimate point.  Race & Priesthood issue seems an obvious example.  Church now says none of that was doctrine.  Wasn't revelation.  Wasn't inspired.  They disavow the whole thing.  So.... how did that happen?  Could it be maybe the culture of the 15 had a little something to do with it?

[mormonnewb]

Why play the race card? You do have a habit of playing the race card at times. Much better to leave race out of it. Maybe just old men would have been enough.

I'm not playing the race card. I'm simply mentioning their race because it matters in this limited context. For example, 15 old white men and 15 old black men will have very different views on some things. For example, ALL of the 15 black men voted for Obama. That number would be significantly less amongst a random sampling of old white men. This isn't an accusation of racism. It is simply a demographic FACT.

So once again, whether right or wrong, the Brethren's views on, say, SSM match up perfectly with their demographic. That does not make them wrong. Old white guys can be right about things too. However, it doesn't make their position any great "miracle" or a compelling example of "revelation,, because just about any group of 15 old white men (even if they were non-LDS) would come to the same "revelation."

[mfbukowski]

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.

No, I did not read in haste. This is exactly what you said:

 

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.

The context was the problem. There was no reason for you to tell the story of choosing a new "prophet" as being "almost identical" to selecting a pope unless your intent was to equate the two events. Yes, you said "new apostle" and put "prophet" in quotes, but to someone outside the church, the distinction would be totally unclear.

In fact, Miserere Nobis ended up saying this:

 

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.

No, the "actuality of the situation" is not the same as all. Popes are chosen by conclave whereas the President of the church- "The Prophet" is chosen by seniority, and the common belief, which I have no problem believing myself, is that God can therefore influence the choice directly. THAT is a big difference!

The fact that new apostles are called in the same way that new bishops- Catholic and Mormon, new cardinals and new Elder's quorum presidents is irrelevant to the question. All these are called by others in higher authority praying for guidance and making the selection though discussions and impressions by the spirit. So yes, in that way the churches are virtually identical.

But so what? In an executive board room, minus the prayer perhaps, the process would be identical. This is the way junior leaders are called to senior leadership everywhere. The fact that churches do it the same way is irrelevant. I would suppose Hindus and Sikhs and Muslims also do it the same way.

But calling an LDS prophet- president is different from all these processes. THAT is the point.

Edited April 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Bikeemikey]

 No, the "actuality of the situation" is not the same as all. Popes are chosen by conclave whereas the President of the church- "The Prophet" is chosen by seniority, and the common belief, which I have no problem believing myself, is that God can therefore influence the choice directly. THAT is a big difference!

 

Im not sure that the notion of selection via seniority vs. selection via conclave provides any more direct influence for God... could you highlight how exactly more direct influence is provided in one mechanism vs the other?

[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?

Yes on both, but that's not the point.  Calling a new regional manager of Walmart I am sure is also "somewhat analogous".

 

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.)

Sounds ok to me.

 

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.

Sure it could be.  But taken far enough one gets into a free-will/ determinism question.

 

 

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.

False analogy.

I imagine choosing God's alleged representative on earth is a bit more important to God.

[mfbukowski]

Im not sure that the notion of selection via seniority vs. selection via conclave provides any more direct influence for God... could you highlight how exactly more direct influence is provided in one mechanism vs the other?

What I actually said was that the "common belief" was that it could be more influenced directly.  THAT is precisely why I put it that way.

 

Canard brought up that point where he spoke about the belief that the LDS prophet is "chosen by God" whereas the pope was not.  That is why I was speaking about that belief.

 

In the NT the mechanism for choosing a new apostle was to draw straws.  Obviously God can influence a conclave as easily as he can influence who chooses what straw, but I personally find  the aesthetics of letting God have "veto power" over the choice more in line with the New Testament.

 

In both cases you have a relatively random-appearing selection process which it is believed God influences.  I find this quite different than the conclave idea, which as I have pointed out, is the way any organization routinely chooses any leader.  Of course both could be influenced or not, but like I said, I think the aesthetics of the random-appearing process more pleasing, and more in line with NT methodology.

Edited April 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Bikeemikey]

What I actually said was that the "common belief" was that it could be more influenced directly.  THAT is precisely why I put it that way.

 

Canard brought up that point where he spoke about the belief that the LDS prophet is "chosen by God" whereas the pope was not.  That is why I was speaking about that belief.

 

In the NT the mechanism for choosing a new apostle was to draw straws.  Obviously God can influence a conclave as easily as he can influence who chooses what straw, but I personally find  the aesthetics of letting God have "veto power" over the choice more in line with the New Testament.

 

In both cases you have a relatively random-appearing selection process which it is believed God influences.  I find this quite different than the conclave idea, which as I have pointed out, is the way any organization routinely chooses any leader.  Of course both could be influenced or not, but like I said, I think the aesthetics of the random-appearing process more pleasing, and more in line with NT methodology.

 

Thanks for the clarification... both the Pope and the LDS prophet are chosen by people (both religions allow that these people are inspired by God in their selection).

 

Im not sure the conclave idea is really any different from the process in our Church. The conclave style meeting simply happens earlier in the process, that is when an apostle is selected.  Assuming that those making the decision are able to receive revelation from God the Veto power remains... or God could simply replace the ballots that are used through his omnipotent power.

 

I personally think that both styles have equal chance of being influenced by God, though the LDS method means that everyone knows ahead of time who it is going to be.

 

The LDS process has the advantage of being far less institutionally disruptive... less chance of a schism where those wanting one break away...

Edited April 13, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[mormonnewb]

Thanks for the clarification... both the Pope and the LDS prophet are chosen by people (both religions allow that these people are inspired by God in their selection).

Im not sure the conclave idea is really any different from the process in our Church. The conclave style meeting simply happens earlier in the process, that is when an apostle is selected. Assuming that those making the decision are able to receive revelation from God the Veto power remains... or God could simply replace the ballots that are used through his omnipotent power.

I personally think that both styles have equal chance of being influenced by God, though the LDS method means that everyone knows ahead of time who it is going to be.

The LDS process has the advantage of being far less institutionally disruptive... less chance of a schism where those wanting one break away...

.

Agreed. The LDS model does have the advantage of eliminating "surprises." It certainly doesn't seem likely that we'll have the equivalent of an "antipope" -- someone outside of the Brethren that many stake presidents and bishops will nonetheless recognize as the "true" President of the Church. Although perhaps, Denver Snuffer will prove me wrong

[mormonnewb]

What I actually said was that the "common belief" was that it could be more influenced directly. THAT is precisely why I put it that way.

Canard brought up that point where he spoke about the belief that the LDS prophet is "chosen by God" whereas the pope was not. That is why I was speaking about that belief.

In the NT the mechanism for choosing a new apostle was to draw straws. Obviously God can influence a conclave as easily as he can influence who chooses what straw, but I personally find the aesthetics of letting God have "veto power" over the choice more in line with the New Testament.

In both cases you have a relatively random-appearing selection process which it is believed God influences. I find this quite different than the conclave idea, which as I have pointed out, is the way any organization routinely chooses any leader. Of course both could be influenced or not, but like I said, I think the aesthetics of the random-appearing process more pleasing, and more in line with NT methodology.

I'm not so sure that I find much solace in the idea that the ultimate choice of an LDS President is "God- ordained" simply because He failed to use His "veto power" (killing off the apostle who was next in line). The argument that something is God-ordained because HF let it happen seems to be an argument that can be taken WAY too far.

For instance, I could argue that my extra-marital affair with Halle Berry was God-ordained because HF could have "vetoed" it by killing either one of us (instead of letting my wife do so when she found out). But that would be a bad argument to just about anyone (particularly, my wife).

Edited April 14, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Kenngo1969]

... For instance, I could argue that my extra-marital affair with Halle Berry was God-ordained because HF could have "vetoed" it by killing either one of us (instead of letting my wife do so when she found out). But that would be a bad argument to just about anyone (particularly, my wife).

I would never suggest that anyone having an affair is a good thing, but ... heck, if you're gonna do it, do it right! (Sorry; Couldn't resist! )

 

Sincerely yours,

 

A Halle Berry Fan

Edited April 14, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

I'm not so sure that I find much solace in the idea that the ultimate choice of an LDS President is "God- ordained" simply because He failed to use His "veto power" (killing off the apostle who was next in line). The argument that something is God-ordained because HF let it happen seems to be an argument that can be taken WAY too far.

For instance, I could argue that my extra-marital affair with Halle Berry was God-ordained because HF could have "vetoed" it by killing either one of us (instead of letting my wife do so when she found out). But that would be a bad argument to just about anyone (particularly, my wife).

See post 117

[Kenngo1969]

... Old white guys can be right about things too. ...

Can I use that snippet in my sig line ... pleeeeeeease?!!!

[MiserereNobis]

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

 

Well, to be fair, Mormons don't honor anyone's baptisms, so I think it's a little strange to feel slighted that we don't honor yours

 

 

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.

 

I guess I was trying to point out similarities between the two and to say that some of the differences are purely semantic.  That, by nature, is a semantic discussion.  I don't think it goes nowhere.  I'm hoping that people on this board can better understand how the Catholic Magesterium works and that ideas like modern-day prophet and modern-day revelation might have parallels in Catholicism.  My ultimate point is to claim that the LDS church might not be as unique as some Mormons think it is, in practice, when it comes to those ideas of modern-day prophet and modern-day revelation.

 

As far as neo-Platonism goes, well, we've been there and done that, eh?

Edited April 14, 2014 by MiserereNobis