What is the role of the modern day Prophet, Seer and Revelator

[FearlessFixxer]

For the last 187 years there have been 15 Prophets on the earth at any given time (give or take a little for the interim periods after the death of one).

Early on in Church history, it seems like these men, especially the one who was designated as President, prophesied on a regular basis.  Things like when the second coming would be, the world would be flooded with the gospel, changes in people's pigment (please don't think this is me being passive aggressive, just trying to stick to the facts), etc. etc.  Even things like describing the preexistence or post mortal world could be included, like Harold B. Lee's statement on disabled people or Bruce R. McConkie's ideas on where animals originated from.  I am not passing judgement on the veracity of any of these things, just pointing out things that could be seen as prophesies.

My question:

 

Do you still see the current Prophets prophesying?  Has their role shifted more to an administrative role or maybe a figure head role?  If you see them as still prophesying, what are some contemporary examples?  Would it be their commentary of social issues?  Like, beware of the detrimental effects of gay rights, or something along those lines?

Do you consider something like the missionary age change to be prophecy?

The only thing I can think of that would be close is the November Policy which Nelson said was a revelation to the Q15.  I have heard some Mormons dispute that and say it is just a policy and that Nelson is wrong...but I don't know what the majority of members think about it.

In summary, do the current prophets prophesy and what are some contemporary examples?

 

-Ryan

Edited October 2, 2017 by FearlessFixxer

[strappinglad]

It is my understanding that the spirit of Prophecy is the testifying of Christ and His mission. I don't recall when the last time any of the prophets did that. Oh ya , yesterday. It has been so long!

What you seem to want is prognostication/foretelling the future. More like a seer ( stone or not ) . You are correct that there hasn't been much of that . Mind you, we have quite a few prophetic visions yet to be fulfilled so why repeat them?

[Jeanne]

The role that is claimed..is the role that they should have.  That being said..I have problems with that.  Apostles/prophets have not always been in line together..one would have to define eternity in a way where God does not change.  The God I have come to know speaks directly to my heart and soul....some may think that is an easy way out..trust me, it is not.  Where God is the same and always consistent...I lost that in the church. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Jeanne

[FearlessFixxer]

4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

It is my understanding that the spirit of Prophecy is the testifying of Christ and His mission. I don't recall when the last time any of the prophets did that. Oh ya , yesterday. It has been so long!

What you seem to want is prognostication/foretelling the future. More like a seer ( stone or not ) . You are correct that there hasn't been much of that . Mind you, we have quite a few prophetic visions yet to be fulfilled so why repeat them?

Thank you.  I am not saying I want prognostication or foretelling.  I was just noting that it happened a lot more in the past than now.  I am fine with defining the role of the prophet as testifying of Christ.

[FearlessFixxer]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The role that is claimed..is the role that they should have. 

That is pretty abstract.  What is the role that is claimed?

 

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

The only thing I can think of that would be close is the November Policy which Nelson said was a revelation to the Q15.  I have heard some Mormons dispute that and say it is just a policy and that Nelson is wrong...but I don't know what the majority of members think about it.
 

It seems as if those who are saying that is was not revelation were not there.  President Nelson was there.  I would think that his word would carry much more weight than that of critics who were not.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

That is pretty abstract.  What is the role that is claimed?

 

To prophesy...to speak for God..to see the future of generations and to reveal not only new revelations..but the why of changes in the old.

[FearlessFixxer]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

It seems as if those who are saying that is was not revelation were not there.  President Nelson was there.  I would think that his word would carry much more weight than that of critics who were not.

I agree 100%.  The policy must be considered revelation.  Would you classify a revelation as doctrine?  there seems to be some disagreement on that part of it.

[FearlessFixxer]

5 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

That is pretty abstract.  What is the role that is claimed?

 

 

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

To prophesy...to speak for God..to see the future of generations and to reveal not only new revelations..but the why of changes in the old.

ok.  I can understand that.  Are there contemporary examples of them see the future of generations or prophesying?  

[Button Gwinnett]

24 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

My question:

Do you still see the current Prophets prophesying? 

Yes

24 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Has their role shifted more to an administrative role or maybe a figure head role?  If you see them as still prophesying, what are some contemporary examples? 

We just had a weekend of Prophetic pronouncements in the form of General Conference addresses

24 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Would it be their commentary of social issues?  Like, beware of the detrimental effects of gay rights, or something along those lines?

Yes Elder Oaks made it quite clear that the gay rights movement is in conflict with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

24 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Do you consider something like the missionary age change to be prophecy?

When it was announced I believe that it was announced as Revelation, so Yes

24 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

The only thing I can think of that would be close is the November Policy which Nelson said was a revelation to the Q15.  I have heard some Mormons dispute that and say it is just a policy and that Nelson is wrong...but I don't know what the majority of members think about it.

Elder Nelson called it a revelation, so I'll take him at his word that it was revelation

 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Would you classify a revelation as doctrine?  there seems to be some disagreement on that part of it.

Would I classify a revelation as doctrine?  That would depend on the content of the revelation.  I consider my own patriarchal blessing as revelation, but I do not consider it as doctrine. 

The Proclamation on the Family may not in and of itself proclaim new doctrine, but it does expound and amplify doctrine that had previously been revealed. 

Elder Oaks description Saturday of the Proclamation as a "revelatory document" seems appropriate.

[strappinglad]

On my mission 50+ years ago in Central America, there were lots of stories of ' spiritual ' events , ie. demon casting, missionaries being preserved, etc. From the time of the first missionaries into South America, there were many stories of similar events. Now those types of events are much more rare. It seems to be the same for prophecy. At the beginning of the Church , there was a higher level of such revelation in order to establish the organization . Now , much is grounded and traditional. etc.

Personally, I fear the day if/when the Prophet proclaims we are going to Missouri. Organized chaos  will ensue.

Edited October 2, 2017 by strappinglad

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

For the last 187 years there have been 15 Prophets on the earth at any given time (give or take a little for the interim periods after the death of one).

Early on in Church history, it seems like these men, especially the one who was designated as President, prophesied on a regular basis. 

What do you mean by "prophesied?"  Prophecy is, after all, a fairly expansive term, but one which I suspect you want to define narrowly so as to exclude most of the 15 prophets you reference here.

17 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Things like when the second coming would be, the world would be flooded with the gospel, changes in people's pigment (please don't think this is me being passive aggressive, just trying to stick to the facts), etc. etc. 

I wonder how much of these "things" arose from personal opinion rather than revelation.  After all, Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”  More here (emphasis added):

Quote

After Paul, Barnabas, and perhaps others spoke in support of Peter’s declaration, James moved that the decision be implemented by letter to the Church, and the council was united “with one accord” (Acts 15:25; see also verses 12–23). In the letter announcing their decision, the Apostles said, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28), or in other words, this decision came by divine revelation through the Holy Spirit.

These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.4

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.

I wonder if you are perhaps not fully understanding (or representing) the LDS position on this issue.

I also suspect that the early leaders of the Church were pretty new to the whole prophetic/apostolic mantle thing.  Today's General Authorities have generations of cumulative experience and wisdom to draw on, such that they are generally very prudent and circumspect in terms of differentiating "revelation" and "doctrine" from, as Elder Christofferson put it (see above link), "personal, though well-considered, opinion{s}."

I also suspect that you are glossing over these items so as to be better able to craft a sharper contrast between today's leaders and those during the formative years of the Church.  If so, I think that's not a very useful or accurate approach to such things.

17 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Even things like describing the preexistence or post mortal world could be included, like Harold B. Lee's statement on disabled people or Bruce R. McConkie's ideas on where animals originated from.  I am not passing judgement on the veracity of any of these things, just pointing out things that could be seen as prophesies.

Or, more appropriately, they could be seen as "personal, though well-considered, opinion{s}, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church."

Quote

My question:

Do you still see the current Prophets prophesying? 

Yes.  Pres. Nelson's January 2016 remarks about the origins of the November 2015 policy changes specifically aver revelatory origins for those changes.

On Saturday, Elder Oaks specifically averred revelatory origins for The Proclamation.

I think the General Authorities function on a regular basis by relying on revelation, and they regularly speak to us as prophets, and hence "prophesy" on a regular basis.

Quote

Has their role shifted more to an administrative role or maybe a figure head role? 

I think their role has, of necessity, come to involve much more "administrative" work.  That has pretty much been the case from Brigham Young onward (though Joseph Smith also had significant administrative responsibilities as well).

So it's not an either/or scenario.  General Authorities can function both as prophets receiving revelatory guidance and as administrators of world-wide organization with millions of members.

To be honest, I think it's rather weird for critics and dissidents to complain about the leaders of the Church being involved in administrative functions.  Do such folks really perceive prophets and apostles as head-in-the-clouds dreamers who just wander about all day in some sort of trance?

And it's not just General Authorities, either.  Our ward's bishop spends a lot of time on administrative duties.  He sorts out callings.  He confers with the leaders of the quorums and auxiliary groups about activities and individual needs and such.  He authorizes distribution of church funds.  He is the "agent bishop" for the building, and so also has to keep track of maintenance issues (we had a bad leak in the nursery room ceiling the Sunday before last, and the bishop spent about an hour trying to minimize the water damage, getting in touch with the Facilities Maintenance group, notifying the other bishops and the stake president, etc.).  And yet the bishop also visits with people, provides pastoral care and counseling, seeks spiritual confirmation as to callings and other matters involving the ward, and so on.

So I guess I just don't understand the seeming resentment hostility to the notion that an ecclesiastical leader can A) seek out spiritual guidance from God, and mete out guidance to others per the Spirit, and B) also "administrate" as to the practical, day-to-day functions of the Church.  Why are these responsibilities incompatible with each other, in your view?

Quote

If you see them as still prophesying, what are some contemporary examples? 

The November 2015 policy changes.

The Proclamation.

And those are just the specific ones.  Again, I think you are misconstruing the meaning and application of the verb "prophesy" in an LDS construct.  For us, it does not have the narrowly-tailored definition you seem to be assuming.

Thanks,

-Smac

[strappinglad]

A good friend of mine , as a SP , often would comment on how hard it was to balance administering with ministering. He much preferred the latter.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

For the last 187 years there have been 15 Prophets on the earth at any given time (give or take a little for the interim periods after the death of one).

Early on in Church history, it seems like these men, especially the one who was designated as President, prophesied on a regular basis.  Things like when the second coming would be, the world would be flooded with the gospel, changes in people's pigment (please don't think this is me being passive aggressive, just trying to stick to the facts), etc. etc.  Even things like describing the preexistence or post mortal world could be included, like Harold B. Lee's statement on disabled people or Bruce R. McConkie's ideas on where animals originated from.  I am not passing judgement on the veracity of any of these things, just pointing out things that could be seen as prophesies.

My question:

 

Do you still see the current Prophets prophesying?  Has their role shifted more to an administrative role or maybe a figure head role?  If you see them as still prophesying, what are some contemporary examples?  Would it be their commentary of social issues?  Like, beware of the detrimental effects of gay rights, or something along those lines?

Do you consider something like the missionary age change to be prophecy?

The only thing I can think of that would be close is the November Policy which Nelson said was a revelation to the Q15.  I have heard some Mormons dispute that and say it is just a policy and that Nelson is wrong...but I don't know what the majority of members think about it.

In summary, do the current prophets prophesy and what are some contemporary examples?

 

-Ryan

https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

As described in this link, he: speaks for the Lord; is the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church; he testifies of Jesus Christ and teaches His gospel; makes known God’s will and true character (i.e. exercises the keys—to me this is pivotal); he denounces sin and warns of its consequences; at times, he may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit; he teaches to reflect the will of the Lord.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

A good friend of mine , as a SP , often would comment on how hard it was to balance administering with ministering. He much preferred the latter.

I think most bishops and stake presidents would say the same thing.  Administering is . . . well, it's often like a job without pay.  And yet it needs to be done.  

And administering also takes up a lot of time, perhaps more in terms of sheer number of hours, than "ministering."  And yet it needs to be done.

Our bishop has occasionally joked how much he is looking forward to that massive payday he will get for all the time and effort he has put into being a bishop.  The "pay" will be . . . the ward members will in unison raise their arms to the square as an expression of thanks.  It'll last about five seconds, max.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 2, 2017 by smac97

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

My question:

Do you still see the current Prophets prophesying?  Has their role shifted more to an administrative role or maybe a figure head role?  If you see them as still prophesying, what are some contemporary examples?  Would it be their commentary of social issues?  Like, beware of the detrimental effects of gay rights, or something along those lines?

Do you consider something like the missionary age change to be prophecy?

The only thing I can think of that would be close is the November Policy which Nelson said was a revelation to the Q15.  I have heard some Mormons dispute that and say it is just a policy and that Nelson is wrong...but I don't know what the majority of members think about it.

In summary, do the current prophets prophesy and what are some contemporary examples?

-Ryan

Responses:

1. I still see the current leadership as prophets, seers, and revelators.  However, I also understand that as we look at God's dealings with humanity that there have been periods of significant changes and revelation.  Further, the periods in-between these times of great change there remain prophets/seers who acted more in a guiding mode without significant new revelation.
2. To me personally I see the leadership trying to counsel, guide, and direct God's children. Their steady testimony of truth and warning about the wiles and temptations of Satan remain valid and important.  There is so little that is new in the way the Evil one leads God's children astray; certainly nothing in our day is novel.  Yet, that does not stop individuals to desperately seek a home in the big house nor does it stop God's prophets from warning hold to the Iron Rod.
3. Ryan, it does not, and it never has, mattered what the majority thought or does.  What matters is what I believe and my interaction with God.  Nor does it matter if anyone listens to the warnings of the prophets. This mortal existence remains story of personal choice and responsibility. 

[JLHPROF]

Well obviously the only acceptable definition of prophet is

Honestly, I think in Mormonism the word "prophet" is thrown about too much.

• Joseph Smith was asked, “Do you believe Joseph Smith, Jun., to be a Prophet?”     
  He responded, “Yes, and every other man who has the testimony of Jesus. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (see Revelation 19:10). (H of C 3:28)

It is the priesthood keys that are of far more import than any prophecies of the future.
Revelator is a much more important office than prophet as well.

Joseph Smith taught that " I will advance your Prophet to a Priest, and then to a King".  Clearly prophet isn't the most important role. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

For the last 187 years there have been 15 Prophets on the earth at any given time (give or take a little for the interim periods after the death of one).

Early on in Church history, it seems like these men, especially the one who was designated as President, prophesied on a regular basis.  Things like when the second coming would be, the world would be flooded with the gospel, changes in people's pigment (please don't think this is me being passive aggressive, just trying to stick to the facts), etc. etc.  Even things like describing the preexistence or post mortal world could be included, like Harold B. Lee's statement on disabled people or Bruce R. McConkie's ideas on where animals originated from.  I am not passing judgement on the veracity of any of these things, just pointing out things that could be seen as prophesies.

My question:

 

Do you still see the current Prophets prophesying?  Has their role shifted more to an administrative role or maybe a figure head role?  If you see them as still prophesying, what are some contemporary examples?  Would it be their commentary of social issues?  Like, beware of the detrimental effects of gay rights, or something along those lines?

Do you consider something like the missionary age change to be prophecy?

The only thing I can think of that would be close is the November Policy which Nelson said was a revelation to the Q15.  I have heard some Mormons dispute that and say it is just a policy and that Nelson is wrong...but I don't know what the majority of members think about it.

In summary, do the current prophets prophesy and what are some contemporary examples?

 

-Ryan

 

Predicting the future is actually not the regular Biblical role of prophets. More often they focus on teaching and calling to repentance.

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Responses:

1. I still see the current leadership as prophets, seers, and revelators.  However, I also understand that as we look at God's dealings with humanity that there have been periods of significant changes and revelation.  Further, the periods in-between these times of great change there remain prophets/seers who acted more in a guiding mode without significant new revelation.
2. To me personally I see the leadership trying to counsel, guide, and direct God's children. Their steady testimony of truth and warning about the wiles and temptations of Satan remain valid and important.  There is so little that is new in the way the Evil one leads God's children astray; certainly nothing in our day is novel.  Yet, that does not stop individuals to desperately seek a home in the big house nor does it stop God's prophets from warning hold to the Iron Rod.
3. Ryan, it does not, and it never has, mattered what the majority thought or does.  What matters is what I believe and my interaction with God.  Nor does it matter if anyone listens to the warnings of the prophets. This mortal existence remains story of personal choice and responsibility. 

Storm Rider...leaders in other churches are also trying to counsel, guide and direct God's children.  Heck, I do this with my "grandkids"..we can see the world going to hell in a handbasket and pass out relevant scriptures, thoughts..ideas..and emphasize certain aspects of moral truths...but what makes a prophet different???  I haven't seen that.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

Predicting the future i actually not the regular Biblical role of prophets. More often they focus on teaching and calling to repentance.

What about a Seer?

[FearlessFixxer]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What do you mean by "prophesied?"  Prophecy is, after all, a fairly expansive term, but one which I suspect you want to define narrowly so as to exclude most of the 15 prophets you reference here.

I wonder how much of these "things" arose from personal opinion rather than revelation.  After all, Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”  More here (emphasis added):

I wonder if you are perhaps not fully understanding (or representing) the LDS position on this issue.

I also suspect that the early leaders of the Church were pretty new to the whole prophetic/apostolic mantle thing.  Today's General Authorities have generations of cumulative experience and wisdom to draw on, such that they are generally very prudent and circumspect in terms of differentiating "revelation" and "doctrine" from, as Elder Christofferson put it (see above link), "personal, though well-considered, opinion{s}."

I also suspect that you are glossing over these items so as to be better able to craft a sharper contrast between today's leaders and those during the formative years of the Church.  If so, I think that's not a very useful or accurate approach to such things.

Or, more appropriately, they could be seen as "personal, though well-considered, opinion{s}, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church."

Yes.  Pres. Nelson's January 2016 remarks about the origins of the November 2015 policy changes specifically aver revelatory origins for those changes.

On Saturday, Elder Oaks specifically averred revelatory origins for The Proclamation.

I think the General Authorities function on a regular basis by relying on revelation, and they regularly speak to us as prophets, and hence "prophesy" on a regular basis.

I think their role has, of necessity, come to involve much more "administrative" work.  That has pretty much been the case from Brigham Young onward (though Joseph Smith also had significant administrative responsibilities as well).

So it's not an either/or scenario.  General Authorities can function both as prophets receiving revelatory guidance and as administrators of world-wide organization with millions of members.

To be honest, I think it's rather weird for critics and dissidents to complain about the leaders of the Church being involved in administrative functions.  Do such folks really perceive prophets and apostles as head-in-the-clouds dreamers who just wander about all day in some sort of trance?

And it's not just General Authorities, either.  Our ward's bishop spends a lot of time on administrative duties.  He sorts out callings.  He confers with the leaders of the quorums and auxiliary groups about activities and individual needs and such.  He authorizes distribution of church funds.  He is the "agent bishop" for the building, and so also has to keep track of maintenance issues (we had a bad leak in the nursery room ceiling the Sunday before last, and the bishop spent about an hour trying to minimize the water damage, getting in touch with the Facilities Maintenance group, notifying the other bishops and the stake president, etc.).  And yet the bishop also visits with people, provides pastoral care and counseling, seeks spiritual confirmation as to callings and other matters involving the ward, and so on.

So I guess I just don't understand the seeming resentment hostility to the notion that an ecclesiastical leader can A) seek out spiritual guidance from God, and mete out guidance to others per the Spirit, and B) also "administrate" as to the practical, day-to-day functions of the Church.  Why are these responsibilities incompatible with each other, in your view?

The November 2015 policy changes.

The Proclamation.

And those are just the specific ones.  Again, I think you are misconstruing the meaning and application of the verb "prophesy" in an LDS construct.  For us, it does not have the narrowly-tailored definition you seem to be assuming.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for your response.  What would you say to the push back that the Proclamation was just a response to the situation in Hawaii?  Or would you say that responding to a current affair is within the realm of prophecy?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Storm Rider...leaders in other churches are also trying to counsel, guide and direct God's children.  Heck, I do this with my "grandkids"..we can see the world going to hell in a handbasket and pass out relevant scriptures, thoughts..ideas..and emphasize certain aspects of moral truths...but what makes a prophet different???  I haven't seen that.

"A prophet" can prophesy as to those within his/her stewardship.  

But "The Prophet" is the presiding high priest, and hence has priesthood authority and stewardship that is not found with "lower-case" prophets.

That's my view, anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

Just now, smac97 said:

"A prophet" can prophesy as to those within his/her stewardship.  

But "The Prophet" is the presiding high priest, and hence has priesthood authority and stewardship that is not found with "lower-case" prophets.

That's my view, anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you. 

[FearlessFixxer]

52 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

On my mission 50+ years ago in Central America, there were lots of stories of ' spiritual ' events , ie. demon casting, missionaries being preserved, etc. From the time of the first missionaries into South America, there were many stories of similar events. Now those types of events are much more rare. It seems to be the same for prophecy. At the beginning of the Church , there was a higher level of such revelation in order to establish the organization . Now , much is grounded and traditional. etc.

Personally, I fear the day if/when the Prophet proclaims we are going to Missouri. Organized chaos  will ensue.

Why do you say 'if'?  As a member, I believed that day was inevitable.