Mormon Prophets, Seers, and Revelators

[CatholicGuyNY]

Zerinus, thanks for the response.

What do you think is the importance of “prophecy” in a prophet? Perhaps a better way to ask this is, what is the definition of “prophecy” (consistent with the Biblical prophets of course), and how is that related to LDS prophets?

Also, I think that it is interesting that Mormons believe that the head of the Church is not only believed to be an apostle, but a prophet [seer, and revelator]. From what I understand, both the Catholic Church and the LDS church regard Peter as being the first leader of the Church established by Christ. What is the basis for believing that he was a prophet, and that apostles are also prophets (or should be sustained as such)? Also, how do LDS prophets act like the Biblical ones?

For contrasting purposes, Catholics believe that the apostles were the first leaders of the Church, with Peter holding primacy among them. They then appointed bishops as their successors, with the bishop of Rome succeeding Peter, and thus holding primacy among the bishops. We don’t regard the bishops (including the bishop of Rome) as being prophets, though some may very well have received important private revelations. I think that Catholics would say that our leaders make inspired decisions, including when they meet in Ecumenical Councils, however we wouldn’t claim that that makes them prophets, or that prophets are needed to lead the church.

Thanks.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, thanks for the response.

What do you think is the importance of “prophecy” in a prophet? Perhaps a better way to ask this is, what is the definition of “prophecy” (consistent with the Biblical prophets of course), and how is that related to LDS prophets?

I think I know what you are asking. In popular culture, prophecy is associated with predicting the future, because that element of prophecy is strongly present in much of Old Testament prophecy. But it is a mistake to think of prophecy in that way. If you study the history of prophecy in the Old Testament, you will find that the primary purpose of prophets has been to call mankind to repentance, and to keeping the commandments of God. Take Jeremiah for example, he lived in Jerusalem at the time of the ascendency of the Babylonian empire, and almost all of his time was spent to calling the Jews to repentance, and warning them of the consequences of their actions if they didn’t. Much of his “prophecies” (i.e. predictions) consisted of telling them what would be the consequences of their actions if did not repent, or obey the commandments that God was giving them through him—i.e. that they would be taken into captivity and exile. Another part of the “predictive” aspect of his prophecies related to foretelling the future destruction of their enemies after their captivity, thus facilitating their eventual return after their period of chastisement was over, in order to keep alive in them the hope of redemption at some future date. But the primary purpose of their prophecies was to exhort them to repentance and warn them of the consequences if they didn’t. modern prophets do exactly the same thing, except that it looks different because we live in different times, and face different challenges. The kinds of problems that Jeremiah faced were nothing like the kinds of problems that modern LDS prophets face. The Jews were highly disobedient and stiffnecked, and were trying to kill Jeremiah! LDS are not trying to kill their prophets! LDS are generally obedient to their prophets and Apostles, and they don’t present them with the kinds of challenges that Jeremiah faced. But in essence modern prophets do exactly the same kind of thing that the ancient ones did: they testify of Jesus Christ, and exhort mankind to repentance and obedience to the commandments of God—warning them of the consequences if they don’t. That is “prophecy” in its purest form.

Also, I think that it is interesting that Mormons believe that the head of the Church is not only believed to be an apostle, but a prophet [seer, and revelator]. From what I understand, both the Catholic Church and the LDS church regard Peter as being the first leader of the Church established by Christ.

Agreed; with the added qualification that it was the Twelve Apostles who in fact formed the leadership of the early Church. Peter was simply the chief Apostle, or the presiding officer among the Twelve Apostles. In other words, he was never meant to act alone by himself. The Twelve Apostles were the official governing body. Peter by himself without the rest of the Twelve would not have been in a position to govern the Chruch.

What is the basis for believing that he was a prophet, and that apostles are also prophets (or should be sustained as such)?

Because the gift of prophecy is the common gift to all the presiding officers of the Church. John the revelator was told that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10). Therefore if Peter had the testimony of Jesus (which he surely did!), that would have made him a prophet! Paul taught the early saints that the gift of prophecy was one of the greatest gifts of the Spirit; and he admonished all the saints to try to obtain that gift. Is it reasonable to expect that Paul would have exhorted to saints to do something that he was not willing to do himself? Therefore all the Apostles had the spirit of prophecy, and all of them were prophets.

Also, how do LDS prophets act like the Biblical ones?

See explanation given above.

For contrasting purposes, Catholics believe that the apostles were the first leaders of the Church, with Peter holding primacy among them.

Spot on! agreed!

They then appointed bishops as their successors, with the bishop of Rome succeeding Peter, and thus holding primacy among the bishops.

Here we disagree. The office of a bishop and that of an Apostle are two very different callings, and a “bishop” can never act as a “successor” to an Apostle. The only thing that can act as a successor to an Apostle is another Apostle. When Judas died, the remaining Apostles did not appoint a bishop to be his successor, but another Apostle. The bishops only had local jurisdiction in the Church. They could not go outside their own jurisdictions and ordain another bishop.

We don’t regard the bishops (including the bishop of Rome) as being prophets, though some may very well have received important private revelations.

If they are what they claim to be, they would have to be prophets.

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

I think that Catholics would say that our leaders make inspired decisions, including when they meet in Ecumenical Councils, . . .

They may very well have received inspiration in their decisions. LDS don’t believe that divine inspiration is confined to LDS alone. For example, we believe that the Constitution of United States was given by inspiration of God; although the framers of the Constitution were certainly not Mormons!

. . . however we wouldn’t claim that that makes them prophets, or that prophets are needed to lead the church.

I agree that that alone would not have made them prophets; but I don’t agree that prophets are not needed to govern the Church. If Paul tells us that the spirit of prophecy is one of the greatest gifts of God, and exhorts all the saints to try to obtain that gift, how can you say that possessing that gift is not necessary for governing the Church?

 

[Javl]

abort

 

[Javl]

Mormonism is built by God on the premise of a true prophet.

This has been stated before and has been refuted with definite proof.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[zerinus]

This has been stated before and has been refuted with definite proof.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

That is a matter of opinion I guess.

 

[stormy99]

Mormonism is true. It has prophets that prophesy, seers that see, and revelators that reveal. That is the main thing. If there are some (a small minority) of Mormons who may not be fully converted to that idea, the LDS Church is big enough, and magnanimous enough, to accept and accommodate them, and give them the right entertain such opinions; which means that I also have the right to disagree with them.

**The prophets have finished speaking God’s word…Jesus ended their prophecies and we wait for his to be fulfilled in the second coming and the end…how can they call themselves prophets…so far the only thing I can see is they change the religion…they don’t strive to keep it pure but continue to change it according to the cultural and political climates…how is that a revelation?

I believe you could tell us some of their revelations because I don’t really know them…help us out…

stormy**

 

[zerinus]

stormy99:
**The prophets have finished speaking God’s word…Jesus ended their prophecies and we wait for his to be fulfilled in the second coming and the end…how can they call themselves prophets…so far the only thing I can see is they change the religion…they don’t strive to keep it pure but continue to change it according to the cultural and political climates…how is that a revelation?

I believe you could tell us some of their revelations because I don’t really know them…help us out…

stormy**

We disagree.

 

[Javl]

That is a matter of opinion I guess.

Not my opinion, Zerinus, but plain unadulterated fact.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

We disagree.

You may disagree but you don’t, and never seem to, strive to prove otherwise from these accustions. When we disagree we give reasons and proof for our disagreement.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[JeanMichel]

You may disagree but you don’t, and never seem to, strive to prove otherwise from these accustions. When we disagree we give reasons and proof for our disagreement.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

It seems like both sides only state their position and no gives any “proof”. Of course, in a topic of religion, proof never comes by the cunning craftiness of man. Proof comes in the same manner that proof of the divinity of Jesus came to Peter, by the Holy Spirit.

Asking for proof is not a profitable discussion and if that is where this thread has gone, then it has come to an end.

The Catholic Church has an unending line of wonders to share with the world. They will strengthen the weak and give hope to the hopeless. I suspect that members of all other Christian churches can share the beauties of their faith. If we can hear one another, we learn more about how God is working with his children. Of course, if we are deaf to these stories, the beauties of the faith of others is closed to us. Let us deal with each other with faith, hope, and the love of Jesus Christ; of these, the greatest manner is with love.

 

[zerinus]

Not my opinion, Zerinus, but plain unadulterated fact.

Says you.

 

[zerinus]

Not my opinion, Zerinus, but plain unadulterated fact.

Says you.

You may disagree but you don’t, and never seem to, strive to prove otherwise from these accustions. When we disagree we give reasons and proof for our disagreement.

Which you never do.

 

[Javl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Javl
Not my opinion, Zerinus, but plain unadulterated fact.

Says you.

Originally Posted by Javl
You may disagree but you don’t, and never seem to, strive to prove otherwise from these accustions. When we disagree we give reasons and proof for our disagreement.

Which you never do.

Your responses have been noted. Can you prove my comments to be wrong or false?
For proof for my, and others, responses concerning LDS claims, please review the posts that have been made in all the LDS threads, the majority of which have been ignored.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

---

 

[Javl]

It seems like both sides only state their position and no gives any “proof”. Of course, in a topic of religion, proof never comes by the cunning craftiness of man. Proof comes in the same manner that proof of the divinity of Jesus came to Peter, by the Holy Spirit.

Asking for proof is not a profitable discussion and if that is where this thread has gone, then it has come to an end.

The Catholic Church has an unending line of wonders to share with the world. They will strengthen the weak and give hope to the hopeless. I suspect that members of all other Christian churches can share the beauties of their faith. If we can hear one another, we learn more about how God is working with his children. Of course, if we are deaf to these stories, the beauties of the faith of others is closed to us. Let us deal with each other with faith, hope, and the love of Jesus Christ; of these, the greatest manner is with love.

JeanMichael:

I, and others, other than questioning, always have given proofs for refuting when some Mormon claims have been made. These have either been rejected, or in the majority of cases, have been totaly ignored.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Mormonism is true. It has prophets that prophesy, seers that see, and revelators that reveal. That is the main thing. If there are some (a small minority) of Mormons who may not be fully converted to that idea, the LDS Church is big enough, and magnanimous enough, to accept and accommodate them, and give them the right entertain such opinions; which means that I also have the right to disagree with them.

Mormonism is false.

The LDS has consistently changed its teachings to conform to the current whims of its leaders.

Joseph Smith was a dishonest fraud who used his position of power to have sex with minors and gain financial security.

Many Mormons are good people, but they are living a lie.

 

[JeanMichel]

JeanMichael:

I, and others, other than questioning, always have given proofs for refuting when some Mormon claims have been made. These have either been rejected, or in the majority of cases, have been totaly ignored.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Every time you have given proof? Hmm. Can you prove the Holy Spirit is real? Can you prove that Jesus is the Christ? Prove that God lives?

This is the problem of “proof” it does not exist when discussing topics of faith. To believe is a gift of the Spirit and nothing we can say or provide as evidence will force another to acknowledge the truth of what we say.

Forgive me for cutting this short, but my time is very limited today. May we all stand strong through Christ our Savior as we seek to glorify our God.

 

[zerinus]

Your responses have been noted.

I am not too sure they have.

Can you prove my comments to be wrong or false?

You are asking me to prove a negative. That is false logic and invalid method of argumentation.

For proof for my, and others, responses concerning LDS claims, please review the posts that have been made in all the LDS threads, the majority of which have been ignored

That is a copout. You are now debating with me. If you have valid arguments bring it, or admit that you have none. I have more posts on CAF than you do. I have 5,894, you have 1,752! I am sure by looking through those you can find all the answers to your questions. Is that what you would like to do?

 

[zerinus]

Mormonism is false.

Mormonism is true.

The LDS has consistently changed its teachings to conform to the current whims of its leaders.

Not true.

Joseph Smith was a dishonest fraud who used his position of power to have sex with minors and gain financial security.

Joseph Smith was a prophet of the Lord and one of God’s greatest men.

Many Mormons are good people, . . .

I would say most of them are.

. . . but they are living a lie.

And they are living the truth.

P.S. I can type as fast as you can by the way.

 

[Javl]

Every time you have given proof? Hmm. Can you prove the Holy Spirit is real? Can you prove that Jesus is the Christ? Prove that God lives?

This is the problem of “proof” it does not exist when discussing topics of faith. To believe is a gift of the Spirit and nothing we can say or provide as evidence will force another to acknowledge the truth of what we say.

Forgive me for cutting this short, but my time is very limited today. May we all stand strong through Christ our Savior as we seek to glorify our God.

That Jesus lived in those days is a proven secular fact. Again that Jesus performed the Miracles as recorded is a proven secular fact. These facts have been recorded by the Apostles and some have been recorded by contemporary historians. Jesus has proven that there is a God, for His Father has spoken of Him to others. If we do not accept these as actual facts then everything as is recorded in the Bible is untrue. Jesus is not divine, there is no God and we all have been deluded into accepting and believing what does not exist. Therefore we are all building straw houses in a gale and we are wasting our time in this forum.

I believe that there is a God. I believe in the Trinity. I believe the Holy Spirit is real for His works are real and very evident. When discussing topics of faith, proof is a necessity for it is the product of the truths given us by God that we all accept and believe. Truth without proof is practically an impossibility.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem