When is the Mormon Prophet Speaking as a Prophet?

[ParkerD]

Lax16,
Continuing:

Now, to your questions:

Wouldn’t prophets have a message for the whole world, not just a select few?

Sometimes a prophet would (if so guided by the Holy Ghost and by Christ, who really are “in charge” of how the gospel is sent out to the world), and sometimes their message would be only to the covenant followers who were willing to hear, heed, and gain from the message. This is not new. The Savior showed that same approach in Matthew 15. If others want to “listen” and “heed” and exercise their own faith and have their household be blessed through a prophet’s counsel, then that’s great in that their own faith becomes involved and the Spirit will guide them to find the messages that are pertinent to their situation and circumstances. It hinges on their own faith and desires.

Example: The “Proclamation on the Family” has been shared with the whole world, for those willing to read it and understand it. It contains Biblical teachings, but presents them with clarity and simplicity.

As to the Perpetual Education Fund, that is an expanding opportunity and fulfills an important need to assist young people in nations where there are not the kinds of educational scholarship opportunities as are available in the United States. It helps raise the standard of living within areas of the world where people take advantage, one by one, of this opportunity. The “standard of living” can be raised one family at a time more effectively than thinking a whole nation is going to increase their standard of living by a government bailout or handout. The children of such young people benefit and their own opportunities will increase over time. So this is a “slowly maturing” process to benefit, eventually, many people.

President Monson has not only talked of caring for one’s own aging parents. His teaching involves visiting widows, the aged in rest homes, those with no family to visit them, those needing a lift or a helping hand. It is a call to spread out the service to many, many people besides just family or extended family.

The most important role of a prophet in our time is to reiterate with the fervency of personal conviction and the inspiring “stamp of approval” of the Holy Ghost that comes into the hearts of the members as they hear the message, that to follow Christ is the way to personal peace and happiness. The personal conviction that enters an individual heart and soul is what will strengthen them when no one is around and they face a choice in their life, to do or not to do, to heed or not to heed the messages of the Bible. That personal conviction can be (and is) strengthened by listening to the voice of conviction conveyed by a prophet and by apostles. But others may chance upon the messages, hear them, and think nothing of it–because it may be a message that does not match how they perceive the role of a prophet and apostles would be, or they may think “this is not new”, or they may simply have other things on their mind.

One stirred in their heart by these kinds of messages, and getting conviction in their hearts that stabilizes their life within its many challenges and everyday choices, has a sense of the same “living water” that the Savior shared with the woman of Samaria. It is not new. But it is renewed in the heart of a listener, and thus in a sense it becomes a “personal renewal” and that is why the water is truly “living water”, and the person so hearing “never will thirst more” because they come back to the source again and again, and are refreshed by those messages twice yearly during their life.

The Savior is the source–prophets express the life-enriching messages that He taught, and their conviction and testimony is what makes a difference in piercing a heart and strengthening a listener’s own personal conviction of the truth of the Savior’s teachings. Then, the Savior can change their life.

 

[ParkerD]

Lax16,
I notice also that you have asked about the phrase “whore of Babylon” and other such phrases from the Bible.

I suppose you are aware that, as exemplified by the teaching of Hosea for example, any time the Lord’s covenant people stray from the purity and truth of their pure original doctrine, then the Bible calls that “to go whoring after Babylon” which means to embrace the enticing but impure teachings of the “world” or the people around them. This is what Moses warned the children of Israel against doing, time and again. It can sound to someone unfamiliar with the use of such language in the Bible, that there is a connotation of literal adultery, (and perhaps there are those who “follow after the world” who break the law of chastity), but the symbolic meaning is that they have strayed in their heart from loyalty and fidelity to their eternal covenants with Jehovah or with Christ.

Since you asked the point-blank questions, it seems to me that if the gospel of Jesus Christ is given to help people really become perfect (and it is) and to really gain the joy that comes from being cleansed from all sin and being sanctified and being prepared to be a “joint heir” with Christ, then any philosophy or doctrine that lessens the likelihood of a person doing that with their life, would be a philosophy or doctrine that brings a person less happiness and eternal joy than Christ’s message intended for them to have, so from that perspective it is a loss and a “straying” that has happened from the pure gospel so plainly taught in the Bible.

 

[StevieD]

a “straying” that has happened from the pure gospel so plainly taught in the Bible.

I thought that the LDS teaches that the Bible cannot be trusted as it has been corrupted/mistranslated so how can it plainly teach anything. Wasn’t the role of the BoM supposed to be to clarify and ‘fill the gaps’?

 

[ParkerD]

I thought that the LDS teaches that the Bible cannot be trusted as it has been corrupted/mistranslated so how can it plainly teach anything. Wasn’t the role of the BoM supposed to be to clarify and ‘fill the gaps’?

StevieD,
Hello to you in the UK, and I hope you are doing well as well as your family also.

That is a common misconception due to the words “as far as it is translated correctly” but I have found through reading what others have to say, that the LDS believe the Bible more literally more often than any other religion I’ve encountered (not to say that we don’t differ with what passages in plain language mean).

Here are further thoughts from a post I had offered as an answer to JAVL on May 28:

One of the LDS “Articles of Faith” says “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” This is a statement of basic beliefs, and is still used and taught.

I personally think the word use in that particular sentence created more of a negative connotation today than was intended at the time. Joseph Smith wrote those words in a letter to a newspaper editor, as a simple explanation of beliefs. He was very much aware of there being different translations of the Bible, so he knew they couldn’t all be “perfectly correct”, and knew also that there was a human element in the translation process which would always necessitate the Holy Spirit guiding the person doing a translation in order to preserve the original intent of the prophet/writer and thus the meaning inspired by God.

LDS believe, and I believe, that the Holy Spirit inspired and guided William Tyndale in his translation of the English Bible, but by that point in time he did not necessarily have a “perfect” original to work from to do the translation into English. But I think the King James Bible can be relied upon as the true word of God, even while allowing for there having been an omission (by the original compilers, whether inadvertently or because of illegibility of the original) of a few passages that could have given greater clarity had they not been lost, including the omission of a few words that changed meaning in a couple of places–but by and large, the word of God that is a totally trustworthy source for getting the knowledge of God and His purposes on earth–especially when a single passage is not relied on as the only source of a particular doctrine.

The Book of Mormon does clarify some teachings, and certainly expands the teachings about the central importance of the atonement of Christ and how the Jews should have gotten that message but some missed it. But the Bible provides the core doctrines of the gospel, indeed, and one of the major stated purposes of the Book of Mormon is to establish the truth of the Bible to people in many parts of the world.

Peace and good day to you.

 

[SirThomasMore]

So, no Mormon has answered my question about Monson. I am not surprised, the answer proves the fallacy of their desires and argument

 

[ParkerD]

Mr. More,
I imagine that your question, since you have plenty of background about President Monson, is a rhetorical question, which needs no response.

I had long ago used the option that occasionally is appropriate on this website, and will do so after this–letting you know so it won’t be a point of wonderment in your mind. Peace to you and all your family.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Mr. More,
I imagine that your question, since you have plenty of background about President Monson, is a rhetorical question, which needs no response.

I had long ago used the option that occasionally is appropriate on this website, and will do so after this–letting you know so it won’t be a point of wonderment in your mind. Peace to you and all your family.

I do not blame you. It is a badge of honor. I have showed you how your church is not true, I have not accepted of the apologetics that do not ever seem to match reason. Faced with that, you must run. I have seen that it is something many mormons do here when they realize they have no real answers

It is my hope and prayer that the truth you have been shown here will be seeds that someday grow in you and that God leads you from the false prophets as he did me.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
Continuing:

Now, to your questions:

Sometimes a prophet would (if so guided by the Holy Ghost and by Christ, who really are “in charge” of how the gospel is sent out to the world), and sometimes their message would be only to the covenant followers who were willing to hear, heed, and gain from the message. This is not new. The Savior showed that same approach in Matthew 15. If others want to “listen” and “heed” and exercise their own faith and have their household be blessed through a prophet’s counsel, then that’s great in that their own faith becomes involved and the Spirit will guide them to find the messages that are pertinent to their situation and circumstances. It hinges on their own faith and desires.

Parker, in Matthew 15, Jesus said to the woman and her daughter "I was sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel… but by Chapter 16, He was speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees and by Chapter 17 He was transfigured before Peter, James and John.
I don’t understand how that represents a prophet sending out a message to only those who are wanting to listen and heed? Jesus spoke to all people from all walks of life in three short years. I don’t think Jesus expected his message to be immediately understood by those that heard it, do you?

Example: The “Proclamation on the Family” has been shared with the whole world, for those willing to read it and understand it. It contains Biblical teachings, but presents them with clarity and simplicity.

I have never received a copy of it. How was it shared with the whole world? Whether I am willing to read it and understand it is up to me, however I have not received a copy.

As to the Perpetual Education Fund, that is an expanding opportunity and fulfills an important need to assist young people in nations where there are not the kinds of educational scholarship opportunities as are available in the United States. It helps raise the standard of living within areas of the world where people take advantage, one by one, of this opportunity. The “standard of living” can be raised one family at a time more effectively than thinking a whole nation is going to increase their standard of living by a government bailout or handout. The children of such young people benefit and their own opportunities will increase over time. So this is a “slowly maturing” process to benefit, eventually, many people.

I understand this is a nice project. However, helping poor people in other countries with education is not a prophetic idea - it’s a good one that has been going on for years . Do you give credit to the Mormon church for this idea? Is it actually referred to as prophetic?

President Monson has not only talked of caring for one’s own aging parents. His teaching involves visiting widows, the aged in rest homes, those with no family to visit them, those needing a lift or a helping hand. It is a call to spread out the service to many, many people besides just family or extended family.

Yes that is very nice and I am glad someone is telling people how to take care of the less fortunate in this country. We should all do it. But didn’t Jesus tell us to do this? We already had THE Prophet tell us “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers…” I don’t think anyone else can claim this as a prophecy, do you?

The most important role of a prophet in our time is to reiterate with the fervency of personal conviction and the inspiring “stamp of approval” of the Holy Ghost that comes into the hearts of the members as they hear the message, that to follow Christ is the way to personal peace and happiness. The personal conviction that enters an individual heart and soul is what will strengthen them when no one is around and they face a choice in their life, to do or not to do, to heed or not to heed the messages of the Bible. That personal conviction can be (and is) strengthened by listening to the voice of conviction conveyed by a prophet and by apostles. But others may chance upon the messages, hear them, and think nothing of it–because it may be a message that does not match how they perceive the role of a prophet and apostles would be, or they may think “this is not new”, or they may simply have other things on their mind.

One stirred in their heart by these kinds of messages, and getting conviction in their hearts that stabilizes their life within its many challenges and everyday choices, has a sense of the same “living water” that the Savior shared with the woman of Samaria. It is not new. But it is renewed in the heart of a listener, and thus in a sense it becomes a “personal renewal” and that is why the water is truly “living water”, and the person so hearing “never will thirst more” because they come back to the source again and again, and are refreshed by those messages twice yearly during their life.

The Savior is the source–prophets express the life-enriching messages that He taught, and their conviction and testimony is what makes a difference in piercing a heart and strengthening a listener’s own personal conviction of the truth of the Savior’s teachings. Then, the Savior can change their life.

Parker, I agree that we need strong Christian leaders to remind us all of the life that Christ has called us to lead. I believe these people come from all religions with important reminders. However, the message is not theirs. They are here to remind us. This does not make a a leader a prophet. They are not telling us anything new.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
I notice also that you have asked about the phrase “whore of Babylon” and other such phrases from the Bible.

I suppose you are aware that, as exemplified by the teaching of Hosea for example, any time the Lord’s covenant people stray from the purity and truth of their pure original doctrine, then the Bible calls that “to go whoring after Babylon” which means to embrace the enticing but impure teachings of the “world” or the people around them. This is what Moses warned the children of Israel against doing, time and again. It can sound to someone unfamiliar with the use of such language in the Bible, that there is a connotation of literal adultery, (and perhaps there are those who “follow after the world” who break the law of chastity), but the symbolic meaning is that they have strayed in their heart from loyalty and fidelity to their eternal covenants with Jehovah or with Christ.

Since you asked the point-blank questions, it seems to me that if the gospel of Jesus Christ is given to help people really become perfect (and it is) and to really gain the joy that comes from being cleansed from all sin and being sanctified and being prepared to be a “joint heir” with Christ, then any philosophy or doctrine that lessens the likelihood of a person doing that with their life, would be a philosophy or doctrine that brings a person less happiness and eternal joy than Christ’s message intended for them to have, so from that perspective it is a loss and a “straying” that has happened from the pure gospel so plainly taught in the Bible.

Hi Parker - Which of my point-blank questions are you answering? I am not sure how to respond because I am not sure what you are answering.

The Douay-Rheims Bible says of The Prophecy of Osee (Hosea):
Ch 1 - By marrying a harlot, and by the names of his children, the prophet sets forth the crimes of Israel, and their punishment. He foretells their redemption by Christ.
Ch 2 - Israel is justly punished for leaving God. The abundance of grace in the Church of Christ.
Ch 3 - The prophet is again commanded to love an adulteress; to signify God’s love to the synagogue. The wretched state of the Jews for a long time, till at last they shall be converted.
Ch 4 - God’s judgment against the sins of Israel. Juda is warned not to follow their example.

I agree that it correlates with Israel’s unfaithfulnees to God.
I am not sure how an LDS prophet saying similar things is connected with us becoming joint heirs of Christ?

God is speaking in Osee/Hosea, not a man. Are you saying that God was speaking through the aforementioned LDS prophets when telling of all existing churches being the whore of babylon etc?

Are you then agreeing that these men were speaking as prophets?

When LDS say the Catholic Church etc are founded by the devil, what is meant by that?
Who said it? Who is the devil - Jesus or Peter? When did it happen?

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker - Which of my point-blank questions are you answering? I am not sure how to respond because I am not sure what you are answering.

Lax16,
I think you have pointed in the direction I was pointing in your responses here.

The Douay-Rheims Bible says of The Prophecy of Osee (Hosea):
Ch 1 - By marrying a harlot, and by the names of his children, the prophet sets forth the crimes of Israel, and their punishment. He foretells their redemption by Christ.

He says the Lord had asked Hosea to take unto him a “wife of whoredoms” (which may all be allegorical in these chapters, rather than literal). He differentiates between the “children of Judah” and the “children of Israel” meaning to make a distinction between the two tribes and the ten tribes, “Judah” and “Israel” being the broad group name for these two kingdoms which had separated after the days of David and Solomon. He says they will eventually have “one head” and will be called the “sons of the living God”.

Ch 2 - Israel is justly punished for leaving God. The abundance of grace in the Church of Christ.
Ch 3 - The prophet is again commanded to love an adulteress; to signify God’s love to the synagogue. The wretched state of the Jews for a long time, till at last they shall be converted.
Ch 4 - God’s judgment against the sins of Israel. Juda is warned not to follow their example.

Hosea provides important details in his prophecies, including that the “children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim. Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.” (3:4,5)

I agree that it correlates with Israel’s unfaithfulnees to God.
I am not sure how an LDS prophet saying similar things is connected with us becoming joint heirs of Christ?

Well, in this forum how many times are LDS told that people aren’t expected to really seek “perfection” or to really seek to become a “son of God” in the sense of being “like Christ” who is the divine Son of God and who clearly taught to become “one” with Him and “one” with the Father?

The covenant gospel was directed towards a people becoming suited to live in the presence of God because they would do that worthily, after all their repentance and growth processes learning to do better and to be better. Where does that lead? It leads to really, truly becoming “like Christ”–not having to suffer like He suffered, but learning to have the great faith, the great wisdom and the great love that He had and still (of course) has.

So being “unfaithful” in the covenant making and covenant keeping processes, would mean to be distracted in some way that leads in a different direction or to a different destination than becoming “like Christ”, which is what He wants humankind to do: to become “like Him.” It means loving something (even things that may seem good) other than loving the pure covenants and pure doctrines that lead to becoming like Him, through a defined path.

God is speaking in Osee/Hosea, not a man. Are you saying that God was speaking through the aforementioned LDS prophets when telling of all existing churches being the whore of babylon etc?

Those mostly weren’t quotations by “LDS prophets”, but the sense conveys the same sense that Hosea conveyed–that any path of religious practice that doesn’t lead to becoming truly “one with Christ” and “one with the Father” through becoming truly “like Christ”, is a path that reflects being “unfaithful” to the pure covenant that was intended by God as noted by Hosea. So in essence those you quoted were really just repeating the teaching of Hosea, and also of John who wrote about the same thing.

Are you then agreeing that these men were speaking as prophets?

John Taylor was an LDS prophet. I don’t know if the item you quoted was stated by him when he was the president of the LDS church. So, I don’t know, but it doesn’t really matter as I said because they would have been restating what Hosea and John already stated. In other words, they didn’t originate the idea, nor the manner of making such a comparison.

When LDS individuals have written or said that the Catholic Church etc are founded by the devil, what is meant by that?

If such a thing is ever said, then in the purest sense it would mean that whoever said such a thing is taking the prophecy of Daniel 7:25 and the prophecy of Revelation 13:5-7 and correlating those prophecies with specific religions or groups, but I think the crux of the matter has to do with what was in the leaders’ hearts at the time they taught their own followers–whether they taught the pure Biblical doctrines of salvation that lead to becoming like Christ, or taught some other “stray covenant” that was no longer the pure covenant.

Again, God’s intent is that everyone gain the pure doctrine and the pure covenant if they will desire and choose those with all their heart. Satan or those enticed by the worldly goals of “Babylon” always find ways to counterfeit the pure doctrine and pure covenants with something that leads somewhere else but is very appealing, and those prophecies say that they have been allowed to do this by God. So if religious leaders point in other directions than becoming like Christ in very deed, then it can rightly be said that that was exactly what Hosea and John were prophesying about.

It came about whenever any leader or teacher, at any time, taught a doctrine and the making of covenants that weren’t pure and didn’t lead to becoming “like Christ”, worthy to be in the presence of God the Father completely pure and completely righteous with perfect faith, like Christ has.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The Pope also claims to be a prophet, although he does not use that word. The Pope claims to be more than a prophet. He claims to be the successor to Peter. He claims to have the same mantle, the same Apostolic authority, the same priesthood, the same keys etc. that Peter had. Peter was an Apostle, even the chief Apostle, and that makes him more than a prophet. An Apostle is greater than a prophet. He is a prophet plus a few more things that an ordinary prophet is not. That is what the Pope claims to be.

The Pope does not claim to be an apostle. All Catholic bishops are considered successors to the apostles (with the Pope being the successor to Peter), but are not apostles themselves. The Pope doesn’t have a different “priesthood” than any other bishop. His role by virtue of his office (bishop of Rome) is different, however one is not ordained a Pope, as there are only three orders of the priesthood in Catholicism: deacon, priest, and bishop. You’re projecting LDS ideas onto Catholicism.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Lax16,
I think you have pointed in the direction I was pointing in your responses here.

He says the Lord had asked Hosea to take unto him a “wife of whoredoms” (which may all be allegorical in these chapters, rather than literal). He differentiates between the “children of Judah” and the “children of Israel” meaning to make a distinction between the two tribes and the ten tribes, “Judah” and “Israel” being the broad group name for these two kingdoms which had separated after the days of David and Solomon. He says they will eventually have “one head” and will be called the “sons of the living God”.

Hosea provides important details in his prophecies, including that the “children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim. Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.” (3:4,5)

Well, in this forum how many times are LDS told that people aren’t expected to really seek “perfection” or to really seek to become a “son of God” in the sense of being “like Christ” who is the divine Son of God and who clearly taught to become “one” with Him and “one” with the Father?

The covenant gospel was directed towards a people becoming suited to live in the presence of God because they would do that worthily, after all their repentance and growth processes learning to do better and to be better. Where does that lead? It leads to really, truly becoming “like Christ”–not having to suffer like He suffered, but learning to have the great faith, the great wisdom and the great love that He had and still (of course) has.

So being “unfaithful” in the covenant making and covenant keeping processes, would mean to be distracted in some way that leads in a different direction or to a different destination than becoming “like Christ”, which is what He wants humankind to do: to become “like Him.” It means loving something (even things that may seem good) other than loving the pure covenants and pure doctrines that lead to becoming like Him, through a defined path.

Those mostly weren’t quotations by “LDS prophets”, but the sense conveys the same sense that Hosea conveyed–that any path of religious practice that doesn’t lead to becoming truly “one with Christ” and “one with the Father” through becoming truly “like Christ”, is a path that reflects being “unfaithful” to the pure covenant that was intended by God as noted by Hosea. So in essence those you quoted were really just repeating the teaching of Hosea, and also of John who wrote about the same thing.

John Taylor was an LDS prophet. I don’t know if the item you quoted was stated by him when he was the president of the LDS church. So, I don’t know, but it doesn’t really matter as I said because they would have been restating what Hosea and John already stated. In other words, they didn’t originate the idea, nor the manner of making such a comparison.

If such a thing is ever said, then in the purest sense it would mean that whoever said such a thing is taking the prophecy of Daniel 7:25 and the prophecy of Revelation 13:5-7 and correlating those prophecies with specific religions or groups, but I think the crux of the matter has to do with what was in the leaders’ hearts at the time they taught their own followers–whether they taught the pure Biblical doctrines of salvation that lead to becoming like Christ, or taught some other “stray covenant” that was no longer the pure covenant.

Again, God’s intent is that everyone gain the pure doctrine and the pure covenant if they will desire and choose those with all their heart. Satan or those enticed by the worldly goals of “Babylon” always find ways to counterfeit the pure doctrine and pure covenants with something that leads somewhere else but is very appealing, and those prophecies say that they have been allowed to do this by God. So if religious leaders point in other directions than becoming like Christ in very deed, then it can rightly be said that that was exactly what Hosea and John were prophesying about.

It came about whenever any leader or teacher, at any time, taught a doctrine and the making of covenants that weren’t pure and didn’t lead to becoming “like Christ”, worthy to be in the presence of God the Father completely pure and completely righteous with perfect faith, like Christ has.

the quotes showed that the true Spirit of God did not rest in those men. It is a false Church led by false prophets

 

[ParkerD]

Lax16,
As a follow-up, so that you have the King James translation of Daniel 7:25 and of Revelation 13:5-7 to be able to understand what Daniel and John saw in their visions, here are those verses:

Daniel 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

One of the things some leaders and teachers within that scenario are predictably going to do to “preserve their power” and to “preserve their leadership” is to use the very Bible they are going to profess to believe in, to say “there are no prophets” or to say “there are only false prophets on the earth”. This is predictable behavior.

Of course they are going to do that. That is exactly what one would expect them to do if they perceive that anyone is either questioning their authority or questioning their teachings–they would want the monopoly position. They are predictably going to present their position as the monopoly position. They are going to dress up that monopoly position with every appeal they can think of to present it to their followers and appeal that any other position is a “false” position.

This is why it becomes so important to study the Bible letting the words mean exactly what they say and also trying to figure out the original meaning conveyed by the particular prophet or by Christ (in the four gospels) whose words one is reading when they read the Bible and try to understand it. One can do that by comparing the Hebrew and the Greek languages and seeking to understand the idioms and the verb conjugation patterns and so forth.

 

[zerinus]

The Pope does not claim to be an apostle. All Catholic bishops are considered successors to the apostles (with the Pope being the successor to Peter), but are not apostles themselves. The Pope doesn’t have a different “priesthood” than any other bishop. His role by virtue of his office (bishop of Rome) is different, however one is not ordained a Pope, as there are only three orders of the priesthood in Catholicism: deacon, priest, and bishop. You’re projecting LDS ideas onto Catholicism.

The Pope cannot be a successor to Peter without being an Apostle. None of the bishops could be successors to the Apostles without being Apostles. Even assuming that your argument is valid as you have expressed it, the Pope cannot be any of those things you are claiming him to be without being a prophet.

 

[LongJourney]

And how do you define prophet?

 

[SirThomasMore]

The Pope cannot be a successor to Peter without being an Apostle.

Prove it

None of the bishops could be successors to the Apostles without being Apostles.

You are hung up on titles. If titles are that important to you, then your church failes because President is never mentioned in the Bible. Your problem is, titles are only important to you as long as they support your desire

 

[soren1]

The Pope also claims to be a prophet, although he does not use that word. The Pope claims to be more than a prophet. He claims to be the successor to Peter. He claims to have the same mantle, the same Apostolic authority, the same priesthood, the same keys etc. that Peter had. Peter was an Apostle, even the chief Apostle, and that makes him more than a prophet. An Apostle is greater than a prophet. He is a prophet plus a few more things that an ordinary prophet is not. That is what the Pope claims to be.

This shows that the pope is different from a prophet, not that he is greater. It is true that the pope has some kinds of authority that a prophet does not. You are absolutely correct to mention priesthood and apostolic authority as examples of this. A prophet need not be a priest, need not be a bishop, need not hold *any *position of juridical authority in the Church. By the same token, a pope, priest, bishop, king, etc. may or may not have prophetic gifts. There is no necessary overlap between the two offices. Thus, to take the pope’s authority claim as implying a prophetic status misconstrues the nature of the very claim he is making.

If you say that “The Pope also claims to be a prophet, although he does not use that word” then you can only mean that the definition of “prophet” pertains to the Pope. To make this assertion in a responsible way, you must substantiate it by first providing a definition of what a prophet is. You must then show how specific papal claims correspond to that definition. I have already given examples of how a Pope and a prophet differ. These examples can be referred to a basic definition of a prophet as “One who speaks the very words of God as such.” A softer, more inclusive definition might be “Someone who sees the future by means of divine gift.” If we go with the LDS view of a prophet, we should add that a prophet has the unique power of receiving revelation on behalf of the entire Church.

The first two claims obviously do not apply to a pope. (The first one is material to why a prophet has to meet a higher standard of doctrinal perfection than a pope does, for God speaks through the prophet in a higher way.) The third, which is most important to this discussion, sounds more like the papacy insofar as “on behalf of the entire Church” fits with the notion of ex cathedra teaching. Yet the claim of receiving revelation, does not fit, for it entails the first definition, of “speaking the words of God as such.” A prophet speaks God’s very words, and a pope interprets them. Both are spiritual gifts, but they are not the same gift.

I should point out that you have not commented on the text of Deuteronomy that I pointed out. If you are to make a credible case here, you must. Your thesis seems to be that Catholics use inconsistent standards by applying a different test to Mormon prophetic teaching than they allow for papal teaching. What I am using the Deuteronomy text to show, however, is that it is in the fact the Mormons who use inconsistent standards. For while the differences between the papal and prophetic offices warrant using different standards, Mormon prophets claim the very same divine gift as that possessed by prophets in ancient times. It is, therefore, inconsistent to to allow one standard for judging ancient prophets and then assume a different one for judging modern prophets. You cannot excuse your prophets for errors that would have gotten them executed as false prophets in ancient times by appealing to the principles proper only to the papacy.

 

[LongJourney]

There is nothing new in matters of faith. Therefore, there are no “prophets” in the OT sense of the word. Sorry, LDS. However, in the new sense of the word, people can be prophets in terms of being social reformers. This includes “If you continue doing [this], then, [that] will happen.” This can be arrived at through the study of history, and simple logic about the consequences of sin. Since the Mormon “prophets” perpetuate some very antiquated and dysfunctional ways of viewing things, they are not prophets.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The Pope cannot be a successor to Peter without being an Apostle. None of the bishops could be successors to the Apostles without being Apostles. Even assuming that your argument is valid as you have expressed it, the Pope cannot be any of those things you are claiming him to be without being a prophet.

Of course my argument is valid as I have expressed it, since it is obviously the view of the Catholic Church on her own authorities. The Catholic Church believes that bishops are the successors of the apostles, with the Bishop of Rome being the successor of St. Peter. Bishops are not apostles. And the Pope is not a prophet, and does not function as a prophet. Though it is very interesting to see Mormons claim that their President, who is supposed to be a prophet just like the Biblical ones, functions like the Pope, who is not a prophet.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hebrews1 In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; 2 in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe, 3 who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 as far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

“Christ, the great Prophet, who proclaimed the Kingdom of His Father both by the testimony of His life and the power of His words, continually fulfills His prophetic office until the complete manifestation of glory.” (Lumen Gentium, 35)

We have our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our prophet priest and king. What exactly would a prophet provide that Jesus Christ has not? Through His words, His life, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, He gives us everything. He did not leave us as orphans, as LDS would like us to believe.