When Is A Prophet A Prophet? Always!

[Rivers]

The Mark E. Peterson topic has got me thinking about the general question of prophetic fallibility. I often hear the "prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" excuse. This quote has never sat well with me. Its too simple of a loophole in my opinion. I don't buy it. I would argue that a prophet is always acting as a prophet. When one is called to a calling or office, he/she has the burden of having to live up to certain expectations. There is not a prophet on/off switch.

In fact I believe that all of us as members of the church have that burden. When I was baptized into the church I promised to take upon myself the name of Jesus Christ and am obligated to act the way He would act. There is no on/off switch where I can change to not being part of the body of Christ and vice versa. I cannot turn off my melchezidic priesthood either.

So I think that God calls us to certain positions knowing that we are perfectly capable of screwing up. We still have our agency. I don't think it is any different with General Authorities. They are called to special positions of authority and are expected to act and speak for God. Yet they are still human beings and are never perfect at listening to and following the spirit of the Lord. And we have plenty of evidence of both ancient and modern prophets royally messing up. This is why access to pesonal revelation for every individual member of the church is so important.

That's my take. Anybody else agree? Or am I totally off base?

Edited August 29, 2015 by Rivers

[Judd]

Good points. I agree, but haven't though of it in exactly that context. It's one of those oft repeated phrases that reflect more of a cultural belief that's simplistic and not too accurate.

[JAHS]

 A prophet will  always carry the title of a prophet and is never not a prophet   But there may be times where he does not act like a prophet according to someone's preconceived definition of what a prophet should be.  This is where the critics come in with their complaints, as if their definition of what a prophet should be is the only right definition. 

 

Perhaps a better definition would be that a prophet will always carry the title of prophet and will have access to prophetic attributes, but because of his human side, may not always be a perfect prophet.

[longview]

I know from my readings of the lives of various prophets that they do not always get answers their prayers, not always discern a situation, sometimes have to wrestle in mighty prayers for an extended time before learning the will of the Lord, etc.  Examples:

 

Joseph Smith had several trying circumstances in which he was severely buffeted and had to deal with a bank failure.

 

Brigham Young did not always make appropriate remarks and made some unwarranted speculations about Adam, etc.

 

Joshua (successor to Moses) was deceived by one of the tribes of Canaan.

 

Gordon Hinckley had to wait out the schemes of Mark Hoffman for several months.

 

None of their difficulties made them any less a prophet.  I love and admire all of them.  There was only one perfect prophet and His name is Jesus Christ.

[cinepro]

This question from a test given to the seminary students in my stake certainly lays it out pretty clearly:

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Brigham Young did not always make appropriate remarks and made some unwarranted speculations about Adam, etc.

 

and he allowed slavery. He was not perfect, but I do like his philosophy about helping the poor.

[The Nehor]

The Mark E. Peterson topic has got me thinking about the general question of prophetic fallibility. I often hear the "prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" excuse. This quote has never sat well with me. Its too simple of a loophole in my opinion. I don't buy it. I would argue that a prophet is always acting as a prophet. When one is called to a calling or office, he/she has the burden of having to live up to certain expectations. There is not a prophet on/off switch.

In fact I believe that all of us as members of the church have that burden. When I was baptized into the church I promised to take upon myself the name of Jesus Christ and am obligated to act the way He would act. There is no on/off switch where I can change to not being part of the body of Christ and vice versa. I cannot turn off my melchezidic priesthood either.

So I think that God calls us to certain positions knowing that we are perfectly capable of screwing up. We still have our agency. I don't think it is any different with General Authorities. They are called to special positions of authority and are expected to act and speak for God. Yet they are still human beings and are never perfect at listening to and following the spirit of the Lord. And we have plenty of evidence of both ancient and modern prophets royally messing up. This is why access to pesonal revelation for every individual member of the church is so important.

That's my take. Anybody else agree? Or am I totally off base?

 

And if the Savior meant what he said if you hold the prophet to a high standard you will be judged by that same standard. So if you spend your time carping about a prophet's failings while you are not doing your Home Teaching.......

 

[Jonahatw]

I think the notion that 'a prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as such' rests upon the very worst kind of circular reasoning to say nothing of the fact that there is no objective criteria for determining when he is speaking in one capacity and not the other.

 

1.  If we say, 'The Holy Ghost' constitutes said criteria we fall into circularity.

2.  Say X claims that he knows that the First Presidency in 1949 were not speaking as Apostles/Prophets when they reaffirmed the Priesthood ban together with the reasons they offered and that he knows this by the 'Spirit'.  In 1949 he proceeds to share his knowledge with the rest of the church - knowledge revealed to him by the 'Holy Ghost'.

3.  How would church leaders have responded?  By telling him that his 'revelation' was incorrect and inadmissible as it contradicts the only authorized body on the face of the earth to receive revelation for the church.

4.  Therefore, the only admissible evidence determining when a prophet is speaking as a man or prophet is revelatory evidence supplied by, you guessed it, prophets!!! 

 

Circular reasoning at its finest. 

[CV75]

That's my take. Anybody else agree? Or am I totally off base?

I generally agree. A prophet is a prophet when you are one too (Numbers 11:29, Revelation 19:10) and the Spirit is the same (D&C 50:17-31, notably verses 22 and 23). This includes the relationship wherein you sustain him and he sustains you.

[Kevin Christensen]

It's a matter of having both the appropriate expectations (being able to recognize the characteristic fruit) and taking the appropriate personal actions and attitudes to the problem (removing any problematic eye-beams).

See http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[JLHPROF]

I personally disagree. While a prophet may always be a prophet and a Deacon may always be a deacon, they are not always acting in their offices. A deacon acts as a deacon when passing sacrament, visiting members, collecting fast offerings etc. As a prophet acts as a prophet when delivering the word of the Lord. Otherwise they may not be acting in those offices.

[longview]

and he allowed slavery. He was not perfect, but I do like his philosophy about helping the poor.

American society was generally racist, whether abolitionist or pro-slavery.  It was the culture for those times.  In Brigham's defense, I will add this snippet:

 

Remarks by President BRIGHAM YOUNG, made in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, March 8, 1863. REPORTED BY G. D. WATT.

 

"If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.

I am neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man. If I could have been influenced by private injury to choose one side in preference to the other, I should certainly be against the pro-slavery side of the question, for it was pro-slavery men that pointed the bayonet at me and my brethren in Missouri, and said, "Damn you we will kill you." I have not much love for them, only in the Gospel. I would cause them to repent, if I could, and make them good men and a good community. I have no fellowship for their avarice, blindness, and ungodly actions. To be great, is to be good before the Heavens and before all good men. I will not fellowship the wicked in their sins, so help me God.

Now, as we are accused of secession, my counsel to this congregation is to secede, what from? From the Constitution of the United States? No. From the institutions of our country? No. Well then, what from? From sin and the practice thereof. That is my counsel to this congregation and to the whole world.

[HappyJackWagon]

I know from my readings of the lives of various prophets that they do not always get answers their prayers, not always discern a situation, sometimes have to wrestle in mighty prayers for an extended time before learning the will of the Lord, etc.  Examples:

 

Joseph Smith had several trying circumstances in which he was severely buffeted and had to deal with a bank failure.

 

Brigham Young did not always make appropriate remarks and made some unwarranted speculations about Adam, etc.

 

Joshua (successor to Moses) was deceived by one of the tribes of Canaan.

 

Gordon Hinckley had to wait out the schemes of Mark Hoffman for several months.

 

None of their difficulties made them any less a prophet.  I love and admire all of them.  There was only one perfect prophet and His name is Jesus Christ.

I agree.

When a Bishop stands at the pulpit and gives a talk we expect he is acting as a bishop. When he's at home and receives a phone call from a ward member, he's acting as a bishop. When he interacts with his family he's still a bishop. Yes, he's also a dad and husband but people always wear more than one hat at a time. When the bishop counsels people formally in his office or even in a conversation at the ball field, he is acting as a bishop. When he says something wrong he is accountable. I've never heard anyone say he's only the bishop when he is acting as such. He is ALWAYS the bishop and he's responsible for his mistakes. Those mistakes don't nullify his calling but we shouldn't pretend that people are responsible for responding only when he is saying something that is "officially Bishop material". How would we know the difference. The calling is part of who he is and who he is is part of his calling.

 

Why would we treat it differently for a prophet or apostle.

 

Yes, prophets and apostles are fallible. Everyone readily agrees with that but seldom does anyone actually identify the error so it can be corrected. Apologies and repentence are necessary for leaders in their callings. We should accept that and shed the ridiculous past time of dissecting which actions and words are official for the calling and which are only the man's.

 

The bottom line is we are all responsible for our own behavior and beliefs. Blaming it on anyone else will not get us far at judgement. That means we must take ownership of what we accept, which means we should be carefully accept for ourselves what we accept instead of giving blanket approval to any person simply because of their calling. That is called putting our trust in the arm of the flesh.

[Ahab]

A prophet is always a prophet but a man is a prophet only when speaking for God.

There. Fixed it.

[HappyJackWagon]

A prophet is always a prophet but a man is a prophet only when speaking for God.

There. Fixed it.

This makes for a convenient way to disavow particular teachings or practices of a prophet long after the fact, even though the expectation is obedience at the time the prophet is acting as a man and not speaking for God.

[SmileyMcGee]

The Mark E. Peterson topic has got me thinking about the general question of prophetic fallibility. I often hear the "prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" excuse. This quote has never sat well with me. Its too simple of a loophole in my opinion. I don't buy it. I would argue that a prophet is always acting as a prophet. When one is called to a calling or office, he/she has the burden of having to live up to certain expectations. There is not a prophet on/off switch.

In fact I believe that all of us as members of the church have that burden. When I was baptized into the church I promised to take upon myself the name of Jesus Christ and am obligated to act the way He would act. There is no on/off switch where I can change to not being part of the body of Christ and vice versa. I cannot turn off my melchezidic priesthood either.

So I think that God calls us to certain positions knowing that we are perfectly capable of screwing up. We still have our agency. I don't think it is any different with General Authorities. They are called to special positions of authority and are expected to act and speak for God. Yet they are still human beings and are never perfect at listening to and following the spirit of the Lord. And we have plenty of evidence of both ancient and modern prophets royally messing up. This is why access to pesonal revelation for every individual member of the church is so important.

That's my take. Anybody else agree? Or am I totally off base?

So......in light of the fallibility of prophets, you state "this is why access to pesonal revelation for every individual member of the church is so important."

What exactly are you implying?

Edited August 29, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[SmileyMcGee]

A prophet is always a prophet but a man is a prophet only when speaking for God.

There. Fixed it.

What a nice contradiction. Edited August 29, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[carbon dioxide]

What a nice contradiction.

It is not a contradiction.  It can be applied to say a bishop.  A bishop is always a bishop when he is called.  But that does not mean he always is acting as a bishop 24/7.  

[carbon dioxide]

 A prophet will  always carry the title of a prophet and is never not a prophet   But there may be times where he does not act like a prophet according to someone's preconceived definition of what a prophet should be.  This is where the critics come in with their complaints, as if their definition of what a prophet should be is the only right definition. 

 

Perhaps a better definition would be that a prophet will always carry the title of prophet and will have access to prophetic attributes, but because of his human side, may not always be a perfect prophet.

Perhaps better will be that a prophet is a prophet when they speak by the Holy Ghost.  When they do not speak as by the Holy Ghost, they are not speaking as prophets but perhaps by their office in the Church.  So when Monson speaks by the Holy Ghost, he is speaking as the prophet, when he speaks not by the Holy Ghost, he speaks as the President of the Church.

[HappyJackWagon]

It is not a contradiction.  It can be applied to say a bishop.  A bishop is always a bishop when he is called.  But that does not mean he always is acting as a bishop 24/7.  

Bishops will probably be thrilled to hear that they can punch out and be off-the-clock.

 

I actually think the example of bishop is a terrible example (see my post on #13) which argues the other side. We expect a bishop to behave while at work or driving a car etc. The things he says and does there is part of who he is. It's not simply a switch to turn on and off. We always expect a bishop to act as a bishop. It would be silly to have a lower standard for prophets and apostles, especially when they are clearly acting in an official capacity, representing the church. Elder Peterson was clearly acting as an apostle (or authorized representative of the church).

[TheSkepticChristian]

American society was generally racist, whether abolitionist or pro-slavery.  It was the culture for those times.  In Brigham's defense, I will add this snippet:

 

So what? In the ancient near east idolatry was very common, but God was quick to tell Moses that idolatry is a sin. Today, pornography is very common, but the church always talks against it.

 

Joseph Smith was against slavery.

 

 

I am neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man.

 

 

but Brigham Young allowed LDS to have slaves, and some of his statements about blacks are not acceptable today, but at least he condemned abuse and bad treatment. 

Edited August 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

The Mark E. Peterson topic has got me thinking about the general question of prophetic fallibility. I often hear the "prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" excuse. This quote has never sat well with me. Its too simple of a loophole in my opinion. I don't buy it. I would argue that a prophet is always acting as a prophet. When one is called to a calling or office, he/she has the burden of having to live up to certain expectations. There is not a prophet on/off switch.

In fact I believe that all of us as members of the church have that burden. When I was baptized into the church I promised to take upon myself the name of Jesus Christ and am obligated to act the way He would act. There is no on/off switch where I can change to not being part of the body of Christ and vice versa. I cannot turn off my melchezidic priesthood either.

So I think that God calls us to certain positions knowing that we are perfectly capable of screwing up. We still have our agency. I don't think it is any different with General Authorities. They are called to special positions of authority and are expected to act and speak for God. Yet they are still human beings and are never perfect at listening to and following the spirit of the Lord. And we have plenty of evidence of both ancient and modern prophets royally messing up. This is why access to pesonal revelation for every individual member of the church is so important.

That's my take. Anybody else agree? Or am I totally off base?

 

Somewhat agree. We won't attain that level of perfection in this mortal state. But we need to keep working at it.

[JAHS]

I know from my readings of the lives of various prophets that they do not always get answers their prayers, not always discern a situation, sometimes have to wrestle in mighty prayers for an extended time before learning the will of the Lord, etc.  Examples:

 

Joseph Smith had several trying circumstances in which he was severely buffeted and had to deal with a bank failure.

 

Brigham Young did not always make appropriate remarks and made some unwarranted speculations about Adam, etc.

 

Joshua (successor to Moses) was deceived by one of the tribes of Canaan.

 

Gordon Hinckley had to wait out the schemes of Mark Hoffman for several months.

 

None of their difficulties made them any less a prophet.  I love and admire all of them.  There was only one perfect prophet and His name is Jesus Christ.

I think most members of the church understand that prophets are not perfect. God doesn't take over their brains and force them to do and say everything perfectly. But when you consider what they have gone through and all the experience they have obtained to get to the point where they are now, they are the best we are going to have to lead us. Most faithful members would agree with this. The problems come from the critics or church members looking for an excuse to mock or no longer believe. They start saying things like "A true prophet of God would never do this or that"  I honestly can't think of anythng a prophet has done or said that would cause me to lose my chance for eternal life. 

Edited August 29, 2015 by JAHS

[longview]

This makes for a convenient way to disavow particular teachings or practices of a prophet long after the fact, even though the expectation is obedience at the time the prophet is acting as a man and not speaking for God.

Disagree. Orson Pratt is well known for disputing the Adam God speculation. Therefore the quorum of the Twelve did NOT have the unanimity required to make it part of the canon.

[Teancum]

This question from a test given to the seminary students in my stake certainly lays it out pretty clearly:

 

 

 

This.  And it is clearly in opposition to the apologist trend of prophets are simply products of their time and culture and so on.....