LDS Revelations

[twopekinguys]

Clearly there was a ban.
You have quoted some things that show why.

What you have NOT done is provide the quotes I actually asked for.

You know, scriptural quotes? OFFICIAL church 'thus saith the Lord" stuff that explains exactly why blacks could not hold the priesthood…like that?

NOT diatribes from men who were not, at the time, acting in their roles as prophets?

See, that’s the thing; the only such revelation that can be pointed at is the one we all prayed about so hard and for so long; the one that ended the ban.

Ok, here are two links from the official lds.org site.

Which one is correct? One says they don’t know why, and the other gives an explanation.

lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

“Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.”

lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

“In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood”

 

[Marie5890]

I would just like a clear and precise declaration of what is considered and deemed credible and authentic Mormon doctrine in 2014.

I know it has several doctrines have changed since 1830. Get that.

I want to know what is considered unalterable doctrine in 2014, if anything.

(I know that, considering the past, what is considered LDS doctrine in 2014 may not be in 2020, considering the historical past of LDS doctrine. Just want to know what Mormons consider doctrine, right here and now?)

If they dont see how it’s changed from 1830, then they dont see it. But it has change, whether it is admitted to or not)

 

[lax16]

Clearly there was a ban.
You have quoted some things that show why.

What you have NOT done is provide the quotes I actually asked for.

You know, scriptural quotes? OFFICIAL church 'thus saith the Lord" stuff that explains exactly why blacks could not hold the priesthood…like that?

NOT diatribes from men who were not, at the time, acting in their roles as prophets?

See, that’s the thing; the only such revelation that can be pointed at is the one we all prayed about so hard and for so long; the one that ended the ban.

Dianaiad - Hey, the gang’s (almost) all here! Welcome back. Has it really been four years?

Isn’t the reason blacks were banned from the priesthood is because of the doctrine of pre-existence?

Joseph Smith himself taught that “Negroes” are the “sons of Cain.” (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 501) Mormon leaders also taught that “As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, page 102)

 

[Marie5890]

Dianaiad - Hey, the gang’s (almost) all here! Welcome back. Has it really been four years?

Isn’t the reason blacks were banned from the priesthood is because of the doctrine of pre-existence?

Joseph Smith himself taught that “Negroes” are the “sons of Cain.” (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 501) Mormon leaders also taught that “As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, page 102)

Oh goodness…

I want to throw up.

*THE Prophet, of this dispensation, sent to RESTORE the Gospel, said this??? …

I really want to throw up…

 

[dianaiad]

The book Mormon Doctrine. It was Mormon doctrine for only 12 years before it had to be changed and 32 years after that was no longer Mormon doctrine at all.

Steven, “Mormon Doctrine” was NEVER 'Mormon Doctrine." In fact, McConkie was told not to call it that, but he did anyway; free will and all that, and at the time was certainly not an official representative of the church; he was simply a student and a teacher who wrote a book as a private person.

When he was called to be an apostle, he was told that there were some pretty egregious errors in it, and that he had to fix them now that he COULD be seen as a representative of the church. He didn’t fix all of 'em, but he fixed most.

Please do not get the idea that simply because the book is titled "Mormon Doctrine,’ that the church has ever accepted it as such. It hasn’t. It’s an extremely useful and informative read, certainly, but it is not, and, I repeat, never has been the official compendium of Mormon Doctrine. Shoot, I’ve known that from the beginning.

But who am I to tell you anything? I’m just the Mormon.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Here is a link to a speech Ezra Taft Benson gave at BYU on the fundamentals of following the prophet when he was President of the Quorom of the Twelve Apostles. Mr. Benson was next in line to become president of the LDS church at the time and was sustained prophet, seer and revelator. So was he speaking as a prophet at that time? Or was he only speaking as a man? He supported his 14 points with scripture and the teachings of other prophets and apostles.

speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=88

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may be involved in civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

Mr. Benson concluded his talk by saying the following: “I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true.” Again, was Mr. Benson speaking as a prophet, seer and revelator or just as a man?

That was just the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson’s opinion.

 

[dianaiad]

Oh goodness…

I want to throw up.

*THE Prophet, of this dispensation, sent to RESTORE the Gospel, said this??? …

I really want to throw up…

REALLY, Marie?

You haven’t been introduced to this before, in all the seven years that you have been dealing with Mormons and anti-Mormons on this ‘non-catholic religions’ forum?

Goodness, people have been very careful with you.

Or something. It’s an extremely standard, AND common, anti-Mormon attack, y’know. Shoot, the cut and paste aspect of it is pretty obvious. This quote was from, 1, a paragraph from Yahoo Answers, which was taken from a rather nasty anti-Mormon (and Catholic) site (now, thankfully, defunct) called xmissions.com.

However, so is the response.

Mostly, it’s a rather big ‘taking out of context’ going on here.

For one thing, this came from a diary entry regarding a debate held between

Here is what he wrote under “Tuesday, 25: …In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain.”

As it happens, most people believed, at the time, that “negroes” were the 'sons of Cain,"…even the Catholics. Sorry. This was not a declaration of such, just a memory of a debate as to whether the American Indians or the “negroes” had worse treatment at the hands of ‘whites.’ He wasn’t all that happy with the treatment received by either group.

OK, next…yes, that quote from the 1958 edition of "Mormon Doctrine."Good thing the year was mentioned. I think, somewhere, that it was mentioned that the church wasn’t all that happy with McConkie’s idea of “Mormon Doctrine,” didn’t I…and that when he was called to be an apostle, he was told to FIX THIS? This was one of the things fixed.

I will say that McConkie was always on the radical side; lovely man, very conservative beliefs. However, when he was shown where he was wrong, he was willing to fix it.

I wonder: how about those who attack on grounds like the above? Do you feel a little less like 'throwing up?"

Or would you like to hold my hair back when I start repeating some of the things that Catholics have been guilty of, in the past…even officially?

People make mistakes. McConkie’s version of “Mormon Doctrine,” written when even YOU couldn’t accuse him of claiming to be a ‘prophet,’ wasn’t. Mormon Doctrine, that is, and some of the things that the anti’s like to use most often are the things that the church, once he became an apostle and thus considered more authoritative, told him to fix.

My FAVORITE one of these is the often cited ‘white and delightsome’ quote that was ‘changed’ to ‘pure and delightsome.’ used to show both ‘racism’ and how the Book of Mormon 'changed."

when in reality, the first edition of the Book of Mormon read 'pure and delightsome," and the ‘change’ was BACK to the original.

Ah…

nevermind. I’m tired and I’m getting cranky. this is not a good mood to be in when posting to places such as this.

 

[PaulDupre1]

I would just like a clear and precise declaration of what is considered and deemed credible and authentic Mormon doctrine in 2014.

I know it has several doctrines have changed since 1830. Get that.

I want to know what is considered unalterable doctrine in 2014, if anything.

(I know that, considering the past, what is considered LDS doctrine in 2014 may not be in 2020, considering the historical past of LDS doctrine. Just want to know what Mormons consider doctrine, right here and now?)

If they dont see how it’s changed from 1830, then they dont see it. But it has change, whether it is admitted to or not)

There are really only four things that are essential to be a faithful LDS:

1: Profess that the LDS Church is “True” (whatever that means)
2: Profess that Joseph Smith was a “true prophet” (whatever that means)
3: Profess that the current prophet (fill in name here) is a “true prophet” (whatever that means), even if his teachings conflict directly with Joseph Smith’s teachings.
4: Pay a full tithe (we all know what that means!)

Everything else is up for grabs. That is the reality of it.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[dianaiad]

Here is a link to a speech Ezra Taft Benson gave at BYU on the fundamentals of following the prophet when he was President of the Quorom of the Twelve Apostles. Mr. Benson was next in line to become president of the LDS church at the time and was sustained prophet, seer and revelator. So was he speaking as a prophet at that time? Or was he only speaking as a man? He supported his 14 points with scripture and the teachings of other prophets and apostles.

speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=88

…snip for space, because they’ve been quoted twice already on this page. …

Mr. Benson concluded his talk by saying the following: “I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true.” Again, was Mr. Benson speaking as a prophet, seer and revelator or just as a man?

Did he say he was, one way or the other?

Doesn’t really matter, though; those fourteen points sound pretty accurate to me.

MIND you, ‘scripture’ has a pretty solidly set definition for us. True, we have more scripture than you do (and less, since we don’t use the Douay), but the process for getting something included in it is still pretty tough.

Really, if a man is a prophet, can you think of any of those fourteen points which would not apply…when he is speaking AS a prophet, seer and revelator?

 

[dianaiad]

There are really only four things that are essential to be a faithful LDS:

1: Profess that the LDS Church is “True” (whatever that means)
2: Profess that Joseph Smith was a “true prophet” (whatever that means)
3: Profess that the current prophet (fill in name here) is a “true prophet” (whatever that means), even if his teachings conflict directly with Joseph Smith’s teachings.
4: Pay a full tithe (we all know what that means!)

Everything else is up for grabs. That is the reality of it.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Ah, Paul…if you truly believe this, it’s no wonder you are a ‘former’ Mormon.

1. Before you can 'profess that the LDS church is true," you have to have some idea of what it’s beliefs are. (unless you are three and repeating after your mother).

2.Before you can “profess that Joseph Smith was a 'true prophet,” you have to have some reason to believe that he was. (unless you are three and repeating after your mother)

1. Understand that times change, and yes, a current prophet just might have a better idea of what needs doing now than Joseph Smith would have. He had his own people and times to deal with.
2. yes, we pay a full tithe. I happen to know that the Catholic church asks you guys to do the same thing: that is, contribute to the church. Many of you DO tithe…the full ten percent. At least one local Catholic school will waive tuition if you can prove that you pay a full tithing to the local parish… So what’s your problem with tithing?

 

[iepuras]

Did he say he was, one way or the other?

Doesn’t really matter, though; those fourteen points sound pretty accurate to me.

MIND you, ‘scripture’ has a pretty solidly set definition for us. True, we have more scripture than you do (and less, since we don’t use the Douay), but the process for getting something included in it is still pretty tough.

Really, if a man is a prophet, can you think of any of those fourteen points which would not apply…when he is speaking AS a prophet, seer and revelator?

You are there resident Mormon, you tell me. You told us that we shouldn’t be going around telling anyone what Mormons believe since we are not or are no longer Mormon. Forget the fact that many of us are former Mormons and know what we were taught and believed when we were Mormon. So why don’t you start answering some questions with clarity instead of beating around the bush?

So you state that the 14 points are applicable if an LDS prophet is speaking as a prophet, seer and revelator. Then how in the world do you tell if he is speaking as a prophet? How do you tell if what the current prophet is saying is “true” or will be discarded as a man’s opinion in 20 years?

 

[dianaiad]

You are there resident Mormon, you tell me. You told us that we shouldn’t be going around telling anyone what Mormons believe since we are not or are no longer Mormon. Forget the fact that many of us are former Mormons and know what we were taught and believed when we were Mormon. So why don’t you start answering some questions with clarity instead of beating around the bush?

So you state that the 14 points are applicable if an LDS prophet is speaking as a prophet, seer and revelator. Then how in the world do you tell if he is speaking as a prophet? How do you tell if what the current prophet is saying is “true” or will be discarded as a man’s opinion in 20 years?

I am not attempting to dodge when I respond with this question: How do YOU know that what you believe, religiously, is true?

WE are told to read, study, and pray about things. We are free to have our own opinions regarding things; if we disagree with the basic doctrine, our decision is to figure out what the problem is or leave and find a belief system with whose doctrine we can agree. I think that’s fair. I refer you to Elder Uchdorf’s conference talk, which has already been referenced here, somewhere, about that.

So how do we know? We ask God. he would be the final authority on this stuff, after all.

 

[OctobersOwn]

It just makes me extremely uncomfortable how much Mormons have to dodge/rationalize/imbue their heads with things that do not correlate with reality.

I seriously cannot understand how they (since they are disproportionally well-educated) cannot take a step back and just honestly ask themselves…does ANY of this make sense? Does God work like this? Does God play around with our reason/history/1800 years of human existence like some kind of cruel parent?

Sorry if this response is uncharitable, but there’s some deep psychological issues if reasonable people can believe in a God that chooses a prophet to tell his people that black people are in ANY degree, shape, wording LESSER than anyone else, much less make it doctrine or even official teaching.

If it walks like a duck…

Praying for that whole church.

 

[iepuras]

I am not attempting to dodge when I respond with this question: How do YOU know that what you believe, religiously, is true?

WE are told to read, study, and pray about things. We are free to have our own opinions regarding things; if we disagree with the basic doctrine, our decision is to figure out what the problem is or leave and find a belief system with whose doctrine we can agree. I think that’s fair. I refer you to Elder Uchdorf’s conference talk, which has already been referenced here, somewhere, about that.

So how do we know? We ask God. he would be the final authority on this stuff, after all.

I would be inclined to believe that you were not attempting to dodge if you had asked that question to begin with in your response and if you actually answered questions directly and with clarity, but you did neither.

You asked me, a former Mormon now Catholic, whether or not Mr. Benson was speaking as a prophet or a man. After your numerous posts about how we should only trust what Mormons say about Mormonism, I am a bit confused as to why you would pose such a question to me.

This thread is about LDS prophets and LDS revelation. I don’t see the point in asking what I believe as a Catholic on this topic since this thread is actually about Mormonism.

I don’t believe Mr. Uchtdorf nor his talk were referenced previously in this thread. Rather than assuming that I and others read every thread on this forum, please provide a link to that thread or quote that talk directly and discuss why it is relevant to this thread.

So in the Mormon context, one should study, read and pray about whether or not an LDS prophet is speaking as a man or as a prophet. So what do you do when two Mormons use this same method to make that determination and receive conflicting answers?

 

[LivingWaters7]

…and yet the Catholic church allowed clergy to marry until 1139, at the Second Lateran Council,

This is not a doctrinal change. Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine/dogma. Indeed, were you not aware that within the Catholic Church, there are many married priests? Clerical celibacy is a discipline specific to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (or the “Roman Catholic” *sui iuris * church). The Eastern Catholic churches (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox), in communion with Rome, have married priests. This must be pointed out, since, within the Catholic Church, there is the discipline for having clerical celibacy, as well as the discipline of allowing married priests, currently. As well, Catholics are well aware that the discipline of clerical celibacy could change in theory, and the Pope could allow Catholic priests of the Latin rite to be married men.

and in the Americas no black held the priesthood until Father Tolton in 1886, and he had to be ordained in Rome (the Father’s Healy were mixed race, and ‘passed’ as Irish when they were ordained in 1854 and 1964, respectively). Now the Catholics had been in the Americas for…oh…close to three hundred years by that time.

The Mormons ordained a black man, Elijah Abel, to the priesthood in 1836, and Walker Lewis was ordained in 1843. No black man was ordained again until 1978, a time lag of, what… 134 years. Less than half the time it took you guys to do the same thing.

One difference…a rather big one, at least to me, is the reception of the resumption/beginning of black men to the priesthood: with us, it was instant and greeted with joy. We already have at least two black men who are in the line to be in the Quorum of the Twelve, which means that we could quite easily have a black man as President of the church within the next twenty to thirty years, and it won’t even cause a ripple.

When was the last time y’all had a black pope? What happened to Father Tolton? HOW long did it take to begin ordaining black Americans to the priesthood? Does the priesthood, after over a hundred and fifty years since Father Tolton was ordained, evenly represent the black Catholic population?

Actually…er…it doesn’t even come close. According to the National Black Catholic Congress, Catholics of African Descent account for 25% of all Catholics, world wide…though according to the National Catholic Register, only 3% of Americans are black Catholics.

I can’t seem to find decent (read…Catholic sources) statistics on the percentage of black Catholic priests in the clergy world wide, though I strongly suspect it is much higher than in the USA, but here there are only 250 black priests among the 40,000 priests. That’s .6%. Not “six percent,” but POINT six percent. If the black catholic priesthood were to match the black catholic population, there should be 1200 black Catholic priests, not 250.

Why am I pointing all this out?

I honor the Catholic church greatly for its longstanding fight for equality, but it has been a fight, and you are still fighting it. We simply fixed it, and it remains fixed. No fighting, no demonstrations, no problems with representative numbers; it’s fixed. I don’t know how other Mormons as humans react, but for my family, at least, it was considered a completely done deal; ‘mixed’ marriages (we don’t consider them ‘mixed,’ they are just marriages) are common with us.

This is all irrelevant (and I say that as a black Catholic). The fact of the matter is that the LDS church had a clear policy, even doctrine (depending on who you talk to), of not ordaining black men to the priesthood. As well, black men and women were not allowed to go to the temple to receive the higher saving ordinances. This was quite clearly taught by your leaders as the actual practice of the entire LDS church. The Catholic Church has never had such a practice, and you can’t point out a single Catholic document stating that black men should not be ordained to the Catholic priesthood. If many Catholics in the USA were racist at one time and prevented black men from being ordained to the priesthood, sure (I’d have to actually look into that historical matter to make a definitive comment), however there was absolutely no teaching of the Church stating that blacks could not be ordained to the priesthood, nor were there Catholic leaders speculating that there was something “wrong” with blacks that prevented them (us) from being ordained, and this was the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Now, as a former black LDS, I am grateful to say that I never experienced any racism or negativity. However, I did wonder if people thought of me differently because I was black (and I had this very conversation with another black LDS friend who said the same thing to me, we were talking about dating experiences), and I wondered this because of the former official teachings of the LDS church. Contrast this with Catholicism, where race isn’t an issue at all, and there is absolutely no reason why I should think white Catholics would look at me differently because of a former Catholic teaching, and quite frankly, the knowledge of the Catholic Church as a truly universal/catholic, 1 Billion member church negates any thought of this. If blacks were impeded by racist Catholics from being ordained, that’s sad, but I know it wasn’t because of some teaching of the Catholic Church, and they could still be ordained (as you note one unfortunately had to go all the way to Rome). In contrast, the LDS church clearly taught that we couldn’t be ordained, nor could we receive saving temple ordinances.

I think it’s obvious the differences between these situations.

You claim that the Catholic church never changes in terms of the priesthood…I just showed you two pretty big ones, and in the same category as the change you criticize in us.

No you didn’t. It shows that you have a complete misunderstanding of the Catholic understanding of priesthood and unchangeable dogmas. There have been no changes in Catholic dogma on the priesthood.

 

[LivingWaters7]

You can look at this two ways: first, that I don’t think they were addressed then, and second, that it HAS benn four years. I’d like to see if those points can be addressed any better now.

After all, if I thought they had been ‘addressed then,’ I wouldn’t bring them up now, would I?

BTW, I HAVE asked that someone show me the prophecy, the revelation, where one of our prophets/leaders said "God told me’ that blacks could not hold the priesthood, and where, in our scriptures, this could be found.

Because THAT is the ultimate test. Again, you don’t get to tell me when I have to see a statement by a prophet as 'in his role as prophet, seer and revelator." We get to tell you.

Really. Just like you get to tell me when something a Pope says is infallible and when it’s not, when something is scripture for you and when it’s not.

Amusingly, the LDS church today claims that they don’t know why the ban was put into place (quite frankly, this is the oddest thing I’ve ever heard, that prophets, leaders of a church, don’t know why something was done, but oh well, lets continue it anyway).

However, it is clear that at least some of your leaders thought that it originated with God.

**First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency**

In another letter:
**
"Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”
"**
en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

It is very curious to me that various prophets, in official statements, claim that the priesthood ban originated with God, yet now, no one knows. Who should we believe? It seems to me that they really don’t have a clue.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Please show me any reference; any post from me, which ‘bashes’ Catholicism.

**
"Now I have to hand it to Catholicism; it has grown out of its historical tendency to go after the heretics with death and destruction. This is a very good thing and I have nothing but respect for the way Catholicism officially views the Eastern religions and Protestants. Change is very good. Good change is even better. "**
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12175808#post12175808

 

[LivingWaters7]

Clearly there was a ban.
You have quoted some things that show why.

What you have NOT done is provide the quotes I actually asked for.

You know, scriptural quotes? OFFICIAL church 'thus saith the Lord" stuff that explains exactly why blacks could not hold the priesthood…like that?

NOT diatribes from men who were not, at the time, acting in their roles as prophets?

See, that’s the thing; the only such revelation that can be pointed at is the one we all prayed about so hard and for so long; the one that ended the ban.

I have already cited one, well known, official First Presidency statement that explicitly ties it to conduct in the pre-mortal existence. Are they not acting in their roles as prophets, seers, and revelators when issuing official First Presidency statements?

Again, please cite the specific LDS source that states that we need something that says “thus saith the Lord”. Please show us where this standard comes from.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Did prophets like Moses, Noah, and Abraham need to have their revelations confirmed by others before they were accepted as such? Aren’t LDS prophets claimed to be prophets like them?

Still waiting.