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

[Storm Rider]

3 hours 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.

I think the point you are missing is that a prophet is more than one who talks to God. Jesus was very clear in scripture that this power/authority I give you is not for everyone; it is for those called of God.  The Keys of the priesthood is not some fairy tale that Joseph Smith told or was used to restore to the earth.  They are real and it is those Keys that separate the Church of Jesus Christ from all others.  Without the priesthood keys the Church would be like every other well-meaning organization that liked to talk about Jesus.  It is nice, it helps, but none of them can do nothing of the salvific work that Jesus instituted on the earth during his ministry.

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think the point you are missing is that a prophet is more than one who talks to God. Jesus was very clear in scripture that this power/authority I give you is not for everyone; it is for those called of God.  The Keys of the priesthood is not some fairy tale that Joseph Smith told or was used to restore to the earth.  They are real and it is those Keys that separate the Church of Jesus Christ from all others.  Without the priesthood keys the Church would be like every other well-meaning organization that liked to talk about Jesus.  It is nice, it helps, but none of them can do nothing of the salvific work that Jesus instituted on the earth during his ministry.

Do you believe then that those prophets who are expected more than to talk to God..were preordained?  Those who do not have priesthood keys but have had experiences of personal divine nature..who are they listening to...angels..that still small voice?  So many miracles and things unforeseen have taken place outside the church.  Just interested.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not according to LDS doctrine, which some may see as selfserving, but it is inappropriate to hold someone to standards of belief that are not their own when describing their doctrine and experience, imo.

"A prophecy consists of divinely inspired words or writings, which a person receives through revelation from the Holy Ghost. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10). A prophecy may pertain to the past, present, or future. When a person prophesies, he speaks or writes that which God wants him to know, for his own good or the good of others. Individuals may receive prophecy or revelation for their own lives."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophecy-prophesy

add-on:  I see Smac has already addressed this, but I will leave it anyway.

I don't understand when those who have lived for years actively in the Church insist that prophecy and "seeing" can only relate to revelations and visions of the future.

I do see our prophets, seers, and revelators as inspired teachers.  Absolutely!

In considering the OP's questions, I looked up prophecy on LDS.org and was directed to the EoM definition that I provided.  You'll note that it says: "These concepts were an integral part of the LDS Church's origin and restoration, and they continue to distinguish the Church from many other religious movements."

While I would never want to diminish the value of inspired words and writings received through the Holy Ghost or the testimony of Jesus -- these things on their own don't distinguish our church from other religious movements.  So it seemed to me that prophecy should be something more.  Although, I do find 

To address what @smac97 wrote:  His first three definitions were circular.  I was trying to find a definition that didn't use a form of the word "prophecy" and that's the one I was working from.

I agree that the Family Proclamation contains a prophetic statement that we will have to see if it is someday fulfilled (or not if we course-correct).  That would be the ideal, right?

And @CV75's quote from President Uchtdorf strikes me more as a beautiful promise from the Lord rather than a foretelling of some future event.  But under the broader definition of prophecy as "inspired teaching", this certainly fits.

[Calm]

I am not sure I am following you...the EoM says this:

"The predominant assumption by many readers is that this term in the scriptures refers usually to foretelling-the prophetic power to reveal events in the future-but it is not so limited."

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Do you believe then that those prophets who are expected more than to talk to God..were preordained?  Those who do not have priesthood keys but have had experiences of personal divine nature..who are they listening to...angels..that still small voice?  So many miracles and things unforeseen have taken place outside the church.  Just interested.

Just my opinion - I believe there is one Body of Christ; specifically, that there is one Church.  All those who do good, regardless of religion, are either members of that Church/Body or they are on a path to it.  Using this assumption it is easy for me to see God actively involved and guiding all his children regardless of church membership or affiliation. 

When we use the term "prophet" within the LDS community we are a pretty uniform definition. However, as others have said, to be a prophet is to know that Jesus is the Christ.  Spiritual gifts do not solely belong to prophets and never have.  I believe that spiritual gifts are between God and the individual....again, without regard to church affiliation.  Here is where a high degree of caution is needed - spiritual gifts and their attendant miracles do not equate to reasons to follow that person.  They are not a sing of authority; they only signify that the individual has some spiritual gifts.  It is easy to say, but too many fall into a path of seeking after signs and those who perform them without ever understanding the difference.

For example, even the servants of the Evil one are capable of what humans would call miracles.  Should we follow after them because of their miracles?  No, of course not.  So it is with humans who have spiritual gifts. 

I am not sure I answered your question; if not, lets talk some more.

I appreciate your questions and always have. 

[CV75]

Would someone please do this one simple analysis: enumerate the various unduplicated sayings of the prophets from the standard works, and calculate what percentage fall into the category of specific predictions of unalterable events, and indicating which of these have been indisputably fulfilled. Then do the same analysis for the latter-day pronouncements made to the Church at large by latter-day the prophets, seers and revelators after Joseph Smith's martyrdom.

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not sure I am following you...the EoM says this:

"The predominant assumption by many readers is that this term in the scriptures refers usually to foretelling-the prophetic power to reveal events in the future-but it is not so limited."

When I typed "prophecy" into the search bar on LDS.org this quote is the top hit in the search results:

""Latter-day Saints believe in both ancient and modern prophecy; indeed, continuing prophetic guidance is held to be a characteristic or sign of the true church. These concepts were an integral part of the LDS Church's origin and restoration, and they continue to distinguish the Church from many other religious movements" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, [1992], 3:1160)."
 

I'm just trying to consider what the OP asked in light of this definition given by LDS.org in response to the search.  I want to reiterate that I tend to prefer the non-foretelling definition that you and @smac97 have put forward as it aligns better with what I have read and experienced.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Would someone please do this one simple analysis: enumerate the various unduplicated sayings of the prophets from the standard works, and calculate what percentage fall into the category of specific predictions of unalterable events, and indicating which of these have been indisputably fulfilled. Then do the same analysis for the latter-day pronouncements made to the Church at large by latter-day the prophets, seers and revelators after Joseph Smith's martyrdom.

You think that is a "simple" analysis?  Seems more like a doctoral dissertation to me. 

But, my "prophecy" is that the percentage of specific predictions of unalterable events would be fairly small.  And, the percentage that have been indisputably fulfilled would be close to zero.  For both dispensations.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Just my opinion - I believe there is one Body of Christ; specifically, that there is one Church.  All those who do good, regardless of religion, are either members of that Church/Body or they are on a path to it.  Using this assumption it is easy for me to see God actively involved and guiding all his children regardless of church membership or affiliation. 

When we use the term "prophet" within the LDS community we are a pretty uniform definition. However, as others have said, to be a prophet is to know that Jesus is the Christ.  Spiritual gifts do not solely belong to prophets and never have.  I believe that spiritual gifts are between God and the individual....again, without regard to church affiliation.  Here is where a high degree of caution is needed - spiritual gifts and their attendant miracles do not equate to reasons to follow that person.  They are not a sing of authority; they only signify that the individual has some spiritual gifts.  It is easy to say, but too many fall into a path of seeking after signs and those who perform them without ever understanding the difference.

For example, even the servants of the Evil one are capable of what humans would call miracles.  Should we follow after them because of their miracles?  No, of course not.  So it is with humans who have spiritual gifts. 

I am not sure I answered your question; if not, lets talk some more.

I appreciate your questions and always have. 

I love how you look at people as a whole.  Your perspective makes my question non existent.  Thank you...perhaps some day we should have a thread on what the powers of Satan are perceived to be.  Many churches differ on this.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

You think that is a "simple" analysis?  Seems more like a doctoral dissertation to me. 

But, my "prophecy" is that the percentage of specific predictions of unalterable events would be fairly small.  And, the percentage that have been indisputably fulfilled would be close to zero.  For both dispensations.

I think even if unalterable they would be small, and what isn't disputable? That is why I think the Church's lds.org definition of a prophet is the most thought-through, realistic expectation to have (expectation being a form of faith!).

[Avatar4321]

the Spirit of prophecy was present throughout the conference. There are innumerable prophets and prophetesses throughout the Church. When you understand what the Spirit of prophecy is (Rev 19:10) you will see it much more. In fact we have a meeting once a month where the spirit of prophecy should be extremely prevalent amongst the saints. At least if we use our fast and testimony meetings correctly.

I think what makes the FP & 12 so special is their keys and the fact that they are seers. A gift we also see frequently.

two examples:

the proclamation on the family and its timing

the themes from last conference including the need to study book of Mormon. The Spirit has given them the ability to see the needs of the saints

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think even if unalterable they would be small, and what isn't disputable? That is why I think the Church's lds.org definition of a prophet is the most thought-through, realistic expectation to have (expectation being a form of faith!).

 

23 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

the Spirit of prophecy was present throughout the conference. There are innumerable prophets and prophetesses throughout the Church. When you understand what the Spirit of prophecy is (Rev 19:10) you will see it much more. In fact we have a meeting once a month where the spirit of prophecy should be extremely prevalent amongst the saints. At least if we use our fast and testimony meetings correctly.

I think what makes the FP & 12 so special is their keys and the fact that they are seers. A gift we also see frequently.

two examples:

the proclamation on the family and its timing

the themes from last conference including the need to study book of Mormon. The Spirit has given them the ability to see the needs of the saints

 

Interesting points - both.

As I've said, I think that the other definitions of prophecy (non-foretelling) are accurate and supported by scripture.

I do, however, feel like we are somewhat diminishing our expectations.  We have fifteen men ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators but here on this thread there seems to be a consensus that they don't predict any future events (a common definition of prophetic).  Examples of seer-ship are issuing a reaffirmation of our doctrine on marriage as we entered a legal battle of marital rights in Hawaii and instructing members to study the Book of Mormon.  And, our most recent example of revelation is a policy that clarifies apostasy by gay couples and excludes their children from full participation (and the revealed policy had been known and circulated by general authorities months prior).

I guess that "diminishing" is what is needed in today's church.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Interesting points - both.

As I've said, I think that the other definitions of prophecy (non-foretelling) are accurate and supported by scripture.

I do, however, feel like we are somewhat diminishing our expectations.  We have fifteen men ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators but here on this thread there seems to be a consensus that they don't predict any future events (a common definition of prophetic).  Examples of seer-ship are issuing a reaffirmation of our doctrine on marriage as we entered a legal battle of marital rights in Hawaii and instructing members to study the Book of Mormon.  And, our most recent example of revelation is a policy that clarifies apostasy by gay couples and excludes their children from full participation (and the revealed policy had been known and circulated by general authorities months prior).

I guess that "diminishing" is what is needed in today's church.

I think that this from B.H. Roberts in the early 20th century is just as applicable to modern LDS as it is to non-Mormons:

I apprehend that this Christian belief respecting the discontinuance of revelation came into existence as the an excuse offered for the absence of revelation. Ministers of apostate churches found themselves without communication with God, either through the visitation of angels or direct revelation. Finding themselves without these powers so abundantly possessed by the servants of God

  in the early age of the church, they attempted a defense of their own powerless state by saying these things were no longer needed. They were extraordinary powers only to be employed at the commencement of the work of God, in order to establish it in the earth, and afterwards to be put aside as childish things.

New Witnesses for God 1:136-137

I think, as you point out, that many modern LDS use this same justification for the apparent diminishing of spiritual gifts. I think that those today who still expect such things experience them much, much more than those who prefer them safely in the distant past. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Interesting points - both.

As I've said, I think that the other definitions of prophecy (non-foretelling) are accurate and supported by scripture.

I do, however, feel like we are somewhat diminishing our expectations.  We have fifteen men ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators but here on this thread there seems to be a consensus that they don't predict any future events (a common definition of prophetic).  Examples of seer-ship are issuing a reaffirmation of our doctrine on marriage as we entered a legal battle of marital rights in Hawaii and instructing members to study the Book of Mormon.  And, our most recent example of revelation is a policy that clarifies apostasy by gay couples and excludes their children from full participation (and the revealed policy had been known and circulated by general authorities months prior).

I guess that "diminishing" is what is needed in today's church.

I am not talking about anything being diminished – you previously recognized that in a tabulation of this kind of prophecy in this and earlier dispensations “the percentage of specific predictions of unalterable events would be fairly small.  And, the percentage that have been indisputably fulfilled would be close to zero.” Perhaps you are experiencing a diminished appreciation of what constitutes a full understanding of prophesying! As evidenced by what seems to be an over-appreciation of less-thorough definitions!

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think that this from B.H. Roberts in the early 20th century is just as applicable to modern LDS as it is to non-Mormons:

But quite to the contrary, that which is shared by our General Authorities in General Conference is indeed revelation (there was specific mention of this in the last conference).

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But quite to the contrary, that which is shared by our General Authorities in General Conference is indeed revelation (there was specific mention of this in the last conference).

Many LDS do try to diminish the expectation that we should have Kirtland/Nauvoo/Trek-style spiritual manifestations today. 

I agree that we still receive revelation today. Many seem resigned to it being more of a corporate, institutional, day-to-day running type of revelation, often behind the scenes and unknown. In our day. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by rongo

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

Many LDS do try to diminish the expectation that we should have Kirtland/Nauvoo/Trek-style spiritual manifestations today. 

I agree that we still receive revelation today. Many seem resigned to it being more of a corporate, institutional, day-to-day running type of revelation, often behind the scenes and unknown. In our day. 

The question we might want to ask is if the style of revelation actually did change from the 19TH century to today's more feeling inspired style WHY did God choose to change his delivery method?

Why would God feel it is better now to give feelings instead of literal "thus saith the Lord" words?

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

Many LDS do try to diminish the expectation that we should have Kirtland/Nauvoo/Trek-style spiritual manifestations today. 

Having less such types of manifestations just makes sense to me.  

For one thing, I believe that there is a strong correlation between such manifestations and sacrifice and suffering endured.  Most saints are not anywhere near the level of sacrifice and suffering of the early saints.  I don't think most of us have earned the privilege of those kinds of manifestations. 

For another thing, God has never really worked the way that some people say He should be working right now.  He's never provided constant revelation and manifestations (on the scale of the early saints).  If we look at the scriptures, we can pick lots of 150+ year periods of time when there is little to nothing to report on the revelation and manifestation front.  Why do we think we should be treated any differently?

And third, I don't think that many saints have the faith to receive them (not saying that judgmentally, but just as a result of the culture we live in).  In the early days of the church, those things were a part of the culture, and cultural expectations have an impact on levels of faith.  They are not a part of our culture now, and some saints even deny that God interacts with us at all.  Less faith in spiritual manifestation will always equal less spiritual manifestations.  That's just how they work.

 

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

 

Interesting points - both.

As I've said, I think that the other definitions of prophecy (non-foretelling) are accurate and supported by scripture.

I do, however, feel like we are somewhat diminishing our expectations.  We have fifteen men ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators but here on this thread there seems to be a consensus that they don't predict any future events (a common definition of prophetic).  Examples of seer-ship are issuing a reaffirmation of our doctrine on marriage as we entered a legal battle of marital rights in Hawaii and instructing members to study the Book of Mormon.  And, our most recent example of revelation is a policy that clarifies apostasy by gay couples and excludes their children from full participation (and the revealed policy had been known and circulated by general authorities months prior).

I guess that "diminishing" is what is needed in today's church.

I would suggest that there is no diminishing whatsoever. I think it's just we have a better understanding or more accurate understanding of the extent of the spirit of prophecy. Yes it can foretell, but that's not its primary or sole feature.

look at the sons of Mosiah. They were men of sound understanding and Mormon says they has the spirit of prophecy in abundance. But I can't name a single prediction they made. Can you?

we do have chapter after chapter of them boldly testifying of Christ to the lamanites. So powerfully that they were able to obtain the first lamanite converts in hundreds of years.

I think we need that far more for this world we are in. We need that power.

and I don't think that's a diminishing expectation for the gift.

[Ushuaia]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The question we might want to ask is if the style of revelation actually did change from the 19TH century to today's more feeling inspired style WHY did God choose to change his delivery method?

Why would God feel it is better now to give feelings instead of literal "thus saith the Lord" words?

Most likely, JLHPROF, the delivery method hasn't changed. It doesn't make much sense to me that the same God who directed the earlier church has decided that impressions and feelings are more appropriate for the modern era, whereas two centuries ago physical/aural/visual manifestations were the better way to communicate with mortals. What's probably changed is the subjective interpretation of the event by the person receiving the communication from heaven.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think that this from B.H. Roberts in the early 20th century is just as applicable to modern LDS as it is to non-Mormons:

 

except i see no evidence of diminishing gifts. This past weekend and this morning as ive been listening to conference ive been receiving revelation more than i have in a while.

in fact I received revelation during our discussions on this thread.

as I've said before, if a nobody like me is getting revelation I find it highly unlikely that revelation has ceased in the rest of the Church. Particularly the presiding councils.

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For one thing, I believe that there is a strong correlation between such manifestations and sacrifice and suffering endured.  Most saints are not anywhere near the level of sacrifice and suffering of the early saints.  I don't think most of us have earned the privilege of those kinds of manifestations. 

I think this is a great point.  I would insert the following "...sacrifice and suffering endured and soon to be endured".

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I would suggest that there is no diminishing whatsoever. I think it's just we have a better understanding or more accurate understanding of the extent of the spirit of prophecy. Yes it can foretell, but that's not its primary or sole feature.

look at the sons of Mosiah. They were men of sound understanding and Mormon says they has the spirit of prophecy in abundance. But I can't name a single prediction they made. Can you?

we do have chapter after chapter of them boldly testifying of Christ to the lamanites. So powerfully that they were able to obtain the first lamanite converts in hundreds of years.

I think we need that far more for this world we are in. We need that power.

and I don't think that's a diminishing expectation for the gift.

The spirit of prophecy with respect to testifying of Christ WAS a foretelling during the time of the sons of Mosiah.  Christ had not yet been born.  They were specifically teaching and predicting events yet to come.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Many LDS do try to diminish the expectation that we should have Kirtland/Nauvoo/Trek-style spiritual manifestations today. 

I agree that we still receive revelation today. Many seem resigned to it being more of a corporate, institutional, day-to-day running type of revelation, often behind the scenes and unknown. In our day. 

ive seen you use the term corporate revelaton before. What exactly do you mean by that?

what makes you think that the revelation we are receiving is different than in Kirtland and Nauvoo?

[Avatar4321]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The question we might want to ask is if the style of revelation actually did change from the 19TH century to today's more feeling inspired style WHY did God choose to change his delivery method?

Why would God feel it is better now to give feelings instead of literal "thus saith the Lord" words?

excellent questions

I'm not convinced that it is significantly different.

I do think there are many who lack faith nowadays and the Lord may be trying our faith.

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Many LDS do try to diminish the expectation that we should have Kirtland/Nauvoo/Trek-style spiritual manifestations today. 

That seems to be a leader led expectation though.  I do believe it was President Hinckley who basically suggested there is no greater spiritual manifestation then the Spirit confirming truth.  And it was he, I believe, who explained how his revelations were pretty much impressions confirmed through internal workings.  If so, that members do not expect Jesus to appear is not so much them, but what they are taught, right? 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I agree that we still receive revelation today. Many seem resigned to it being more of a corporate, institutional, day-to-day running type of revelation, often behind the scenes and unknown. In our day. 

yes, the kind of inspiration that drives many companies is probably at least partially happening within the Church as well.  But of course, there's nothing unique about that.