Mormon Prophets & Revelations

[kimg901]

It was posted in another thread that when a prophet of the mormon church recieves a revelation from God, the revelation is then passed on to members to see whether the revelation should be implemented into the church (I may have read it wrong) If these men are trully prophets of our Lord, why wouldnt the revelation just be implemented rather than being voted in? Your thoughts?

 

[ltwin]

It was posted in another thread that when a prophet of the mormon church recieves a revelation from God, the revelation is then passed on to members to see whether the revelation should be implemented into the church (I may have read it wrong) If these men are trully prophets of our Lord, why wouldnt the revelation just be implemented rather than being voted in? Your thoughts?

I’m not Mormon, so I’m just throwing this out there. Perhaps its got something to do with the idea that even prophecy and revelation is subject to the discernment and testing of the wider “church.” I guess the logic is that if God has given some new revelation to a prophet, he is capable of confirming that in fact that revelation is true through the prayerful discernment of the entire body.

I don’t know anything about Mormon “prophets.” Do Mormons believe their prophets are “infallible”?

 

[kimg901]

I’m not Mormon, so I’m just throwing this out there. Perhaps its got something to do with the idea that even prophecy and revelation is subject to the discernment and testing of the wider “church.” I guess the logic is that if God has given some new revelation to a prophet, he is capable of confirming that in fact that revelation is true through the prayerful discernment of the entire body.

I don’t know anything about Mormon “prophets.” Do Mormons believe their prophets are “infallible”?

I dont think so. I do know that one of their earlier prophets (BY) said that you should believe everything that he speaks. Kind of different from theses days.

 

[TexanKnight]

The list of failed lds “prophet” prophesies and teachings is huge…

 

[Monergistic]

The list of failed lds “prophet” prophesies and teachings is huge…

Maybe that’s why it’s subject to wider review.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I’m not Mormon, so I’m just throwing this out there. Perhaps its got something to do with the idea that even prophecy and revelation is subject to the discernment and testing of the wider “church.” I guess the logic is that if God has given some new revelation to a prophet, he is capable of confirming that in fact that revelation is true through the prayerful discernment of the entire body.

Yes, this seems to be the typical LDS view on the matter. The confirmatory personal revelation from God is something emphasized in many aspects of Mormonism.

Also, I don’t think it is so much as “voting” to accept or reject a revelation given by a Mormon prophet, as it’s more of a “sustaining” of the revelation. When they raise their hands, it’s more of a “yes, I do believe that this is a prophet of the Lord, and I know that this revelation is from God”, instead of a votes being collected and that the revelation could be shot down due to dissenting votes.

I don’t know anything about Mormon “prophets.” Do Mormons believe their prophets are “infallible”?

Well, I believe it was Joseph Smith that said something like “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”. The problem I’ve seen is how to discern when the LDS prophet is indeed acting in this prophetic office, and when he’s merely a man giving his opinions. This causes much confusion as to what to accept and reject in various teachings given in the past.

 

[Marie5890]

It was posted in another thread that when a prophet of the mormon church recieves a revelation from God, the revelation is then passed on to members to see whether the revelation should be implemented into the church (I may have read it wrong) If these men are trully prophets of our Lord, why wouldnt the revelation just be implemented rather than being voted in? Your thoughts?

That does, sorta, kind of, be the view of the Catholic Church as well. The reception of the the wider church, as well, is taken into account. (ie, the assumption, the immaculate).

The “cult” of any person whose cause is up for canonization is also taken into account.

Looking at historical perspective matters in the Catholic Church matters (also known as “tradition”)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, this seems to be the typical LDS view on the matter. The confirmatory personal revelation from God is something emphasized in many aspects of Mormonism.

Also, I don’t think it is so much as “voting” to accept or reject a revelation given by a Mormon prophet, as it’s more of a “sustaining” of the revelation. When they raise their hands, it’s more of a “yes, I do believe that this is a prophet of the Lord, and I know that this revelation is from God”, instead of a votes being collected and that the revelation could be shot down due to dissenting votes.

Well, I believe it was Joseph Smith that said something like “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”. The problem I’ve seen is how to discern when the LDS prophet is indeed acting in this prophetic office, and when he’s merely a man giving his opinions. This causes much confusion as to what to accept and reject in various teachings given in the past.

The thing is the “nay” votes, or dissenters, are either non-existent, forced out as “apostates” or leave because they can’t or won’t accept the so-called revelation.

The most dramatic example is William Law’s rejection of polygamy.

 

[lynnettejane]

Didn’t someone in another thread say that there is a Holy of Holies in one of the Temples where God speaks directly to the prophet? If this is the case then surely ‘Thus saith the Lord’ should be enough. What I find kind of interesting is the dearth of prophecies via their prophets. They are also supposed to be seers and revelators, when? Doesn’t seem to happen nowadays, they seem to be too busy appearing to be mainstream.

 

[NeuroTypical]

I keep a few quotes on the subject handy. These quotes express my own thoughts on the matter pretty well. I don’t consider these quotes scripture, all though some of them come from authoritative sources. If someone wants to nitpick about accuracy or absolute truth here, go for it. I’m only posting them to show some principles that I agree with:

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150

Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God. We are the sons and daughters of God, willing followers, disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, and “under this head are [we] made free.” (Mosiah 5: 8 )
Those who talk of blind obedience may appear to know many things, but they do not understand the doctrines of the gospel. There is an obedience that comes from a knowledge of the truth that transcends any external form of control. We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see.

Boyd K. Packer, “Agency and Control,” Ensign, May 1983, 66

Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.
If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know[ing] that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil

Josehp F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992)

It is a mistaken idea, prevalent in the world, that the perpetuity of this work depends upon the authorities keeping the masses of the people in ignorance. The truth is the direct reverse, else why have we all these auxiliary organizations and quorums of priesthood in the church, for the education of the rising generation. Their being established in the faith depends upon their knowledge of the Gospel. Our greatest fear concerning our children in Zion is the possibility of their growing up in ignorance of the everlasting Gospel…As a matter of intelligent obedience–not blind obedience–we should observe to keep the word of wisdom. For the same reason we should observe to keep holy the Sabbath day, and the name of our Father in Heaven, and His Son Jesus Christ, and intelligently yield obedience to every requirement that is made at our hands

George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1907, Afternoon Session, 15-17

 

[TexanKnight]

I keep a few quotes on the subject handy. These quotes express my own thoughts on the matter pretty well. I don’t consider these quotes scripture, all though some of them come from authoritative sources. If someone wants to nitpick about accuracy or absolute truth here, go for it. I’m only posting them to show some principles that I agree with:

ok…now that you have, again, tried to mislead us regarding prophets, let me, again, correct the record:

Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.136 “The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.”

“When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.”-Ensign, Aug. 1979, pp. 2-3.

Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture” (Journal of Discourses, 13:95).

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt to do that, the Lord would remove me out of my place…"- President Wilford Woodruff, Deseret Evening News, Oct. 11, 1890, p. 2.

“…convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds…”- Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, pp. 15-16

Young Women’s President Elaine Cannon said: “Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over.”-Ensign Nov. 1978, p. 108. President N. Eldon Tanner of the First Presidency endorsed her statement: “I was much impressed by that simple statement, which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us. Wherever I go, my message to the people is: follow the Prophet…Whose side are we on? When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.”-Ensign, Aug. 1979, pp. 2-3.

 

[TexanKnight]

If only Mormons could be consistent. Things would be so much easier…

for them.

Right now, things are way to easy for us.

 

[RebeccaJ]

“Some things that are true are not very useful” (“The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than Intellect”, Elder Boyd K. Packer, 1981). Discernment becomes compromised when you are discouraged from learning truths and/or truths are hidden from you under the guise of “milk before meat”.

 

[NeuroTypical]

ok…now that you have, again, tried to mislead us regarding prophets, let me, again, correct the record:

Wow. I tried hard to make it clear what I was doing - expressing my own thoughts on the matter, and using some quotes that I clearly stated I didn’t consider binding or absolute truth. And yet still I get accused of trying to mislead people. Well, ok - I guess I stand accused. I maintain that I am not trying to mislead anyone. Just expressing personal opinion, and posting some quotes.

Since it looks like Texan wants to fight about what mormons believe/say/do, I’ll engage a little:

“When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.”-Ensign, Aug. 1979, pp. 2-3.

Yeah, this is a regrettable notion, originally made in a minor “Ward Teachers’ Message” in June 1945. The original quote: “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”

To put it bluntly, this quote is stupid. I don’t believe it. I denounce it. It is not true.

I’m not the only mormon who denounces the notion, either. It was officially denounced by Pres. George Albert Smith in November of the same year. Here’s part of a letter Pres. Smith wrote to one of Dr. Cope, leader of the First Unitarian Society in SLC:

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.

The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: “I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please.” This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499] Joseph Smith said further: “If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”

Yes, apparently the notion stuck with some mormons. What can I say, Texan? I do not believe my prophets are infallible. I do not believe when they’ve said something, the discussion is over. I stand with my church leadership and denounce such notions. I’m hardly the only mormon that believes this…

Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture” (Journal of Discourses, 13:95).

Well, BY said an awful lot of things when he was not preaching sermons. And not all of his sermons he then ‘sent out to the children of men’, so this quote doesn’t do much for me. Not sure what you think it proves.

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt to do that, the Lord would remove me out of my place…"- President Wilford Woodruff, Deseret Evening News, Oct. 11, 1890, p. 2.

We stand by this one. But I note that someone can be wrong about something, without me getting led astray.

• Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, pp. 15-16

Orson Pratt’s publication “The Seer”, was repudiated by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church. Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. The Deseret News 8/23/1865 published an article signed by the First Presidency and Twelve, saying the Seer and some of Elder Pratt’s other writings were inaccurate. “But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it.”

Texan - it’s been a hundred and forty eight years since Pratt’s Seer nonsense has been denounced and repudiated. Why are you still bringing it up as something valid in 2013? And using it as evidence against my character no less?

Has no mormon ever given you this information before? We don’t believe what Pratt said in The Seer in the 1800’s. How can we make the distance between it and us wider, so you’ll stop telling people we believe and teach it?

 

[RebeccaJ]

It always cracks me up when “The Seer was repudiated” is used, as though this conveys some sort of truth about something. HELLO!!! Pratt was publishing AGAINST Young’s doctrine that Adam is God. Young didn’t want this occurring and threatened Pratt with excommunication if he continued to publish.

It is an example of how speaking against the prophet will get you in trouble, NOT an example of how truth is discerned.

The Adam/God doctrine was not believed by Pratt, and he published reasons why, and why no one else should believe it either. He got the smack down from “God’s Anointed”. This is the doctrine that no one should pay attention to.

Yet, here we have someone saying the very same things, only twisted into a contradiction. Don’t believe Brigham Young, and don’t believe Orson Pratt because Brigham Young said so.



Welcome to the maze.

 

[TexanKnight]

Wow. I tried hard to make it clear what I was doing - expressing my own thoughts on the matter, and using some quotes that I clearly stated I didn’t consider binding or absolute truth. And yet still I get accused of trying to mislead people. Well, ok - I guess I stand accused. I maintain that I am not trying to mislead anyone. Just expressing personal opinion, and posting some quotes.

Well, when you post quotes from alleged prophets, it makes it appear as if the issue is settled. That is misleading when it clearly isn’t

Since it looks like Texan wants to fight about what mormons believe/say/do, I’ll engage a little:

If correcting your misleading quotes is wanting a fight, ok. I simply thought I was correcting your misleading quotes

Yeah, this is a regrettable notion, originally made in a minor “Ward Teachers’ Message” in June 1945. The original quote: “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”

To put it bluntly, this quote is stupid. I don’t believe it. I denounce it. It is not true.

Then you are not being honest. It is absolutely true. I can see what you have lowered yourself into doing. But, prove me wrong. So far, you have failed on every attempt to do that

I’m not the only mormon who denounces the notion, either. It was officially denounced by Pres. George Albert Smith in November of the same year. Here’s part of a letter Pres. Smith wrote to one of Dr. Cope, leader of the First Unitarian Society in SLC:

I love it when alleged prophets contradict each other. It simply proves our point about your alleged prophets. Thank you for that

Yes, apparently the notion stuck with some mormons. What can I say, Texan? I do not believe my prophets are infallible. I do not believe when they’ve said something, the discussion is over. I stand with my church leadership and denounce such notions. I’m hardly the only mormon that believes this…

I love it when you call your alleged prophets liars. Thank you for that, too

Well, BY said an awful lot of things when he was not preaching sermons. And not all of his sermons he then ‘sent out to the children of men’, so this quote doesn’t do much for me. Not sure what you think it proves.

Funny thing…the things that you dispute WERE in sermons. LOLOLOLOL

We stand by this one. But I note that someone can be wrong about something, without me getting led astray

LLOLOL…your alleged prophets are so over the board you have shown you ARE led astray! Do you believe Adam is our God? BY said it in a sermon…

Orson Pratt’s publication “The Seer”, was repudiated by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church. Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. The Deseret News 8/23/1865 published an article signed by the First Presidency and Twelve, saying the Seer and some of Elder Pratt’s other writings were inaccurate. “But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it.”

Thank you. I love it when your currents repudiate your formers. You simply prove my point. Its delicious

Texan - it’s been a hundred and forty eight years since Pratt’s Seer nonsense has been denounced and repudiated. Why are you still bringing it up as something valid in 2013? And using it as evidence against my character no less?

Yep. He was an Apostle. Allegedly. I have ZERO problem with the notion you cannot trust what your apostles and prophets say.

Has no mormon ever given you this information before? We don’t believe what Pratt said in The Seer in the 1800’s. How can we make the distance between it and us wider, so you’ll stop telling people we believe and teach it?

lol…I did not say you taught. I said IT WAS TAUGHT. And the fact you are quick to repudiate it is EXACTLY what I wanted you to do because it proves my point.

Thank you

 

[TexanKnight]

It always cracks me up when “The Seer was repudiated” is used, as though this conveys some sort of truth about something. HELLO!!! Pratt was publishing AGAINST Young’s doctrine that Adam is God. Young didn’t want this occurring and threatened Pratt with excommunication if he continued to publish.

It is an example of how speaking against the prophet will get you in trouble, NOT an example of how truth is discerned.

The Adam/God doctrine was not believed by Pratt, and he published reasons why, and why no one else should believe it either. He got the smack down from “God’s Anointed”. This is the doctrine that no one should pay attention to.

Yet, here we have someone saying the very same things, only twisted into a contradiction. Don’t believe Brigham Young, and don’t believe Orson Pratt because Brigham Young said so.



Welcome to the maze.

lol…we can’t believe BY cuz Pratt repudiates him…but we cannot believe Pratt because he is, in turn, repudiated. So, does that mean we CAN believe BY? Nope…because someone else later repudiates him again…so then we can believe Pratt now? Nope, because he is still repudiated…

This is to good to make up…

 

[RebeccaJ]

lol…we can’t believe BY cuz Pratt repudiates him…but we cannot believe Pratt because he is, in turn, repudiated. So, does that mean we CAN believe BY? Nope…because someone else later repudiates him again…so then we can believe Pratt now? Nope, because he is still repudiated…

This is to good to make up…

I know! The fun really starts when you start looking at later so-called prophets, who say Young’s Adam/God doctrine was opinion and they replace it with what Pratt published as the theological alternative in “The Seer”. But none of it is doctrine, because both are repudiated.

 

[TexanKnight]

Shoulda said “too good to make up”

 

[SteveVH]

lol…we can’t believe BY cuz Pratt repudiates him…but we cannot believe Pratt because he is, in turn, repudiated. So, does that mean we CAN believe BY? Nope…because someone else later repudiates him again…so then we can believe Pratt now? Nope, because he is still repudiated…

This is too good to make up…

Now that, my friends, is funny. Truly, it would make an incredible comedy routine. I hope this isn’t uncharitable but who would not find this hysterical? TK, you’ve missed your calling, and there is plenty of material.