When is the Mormon Prophet Speaking as a Prophet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicGuyNY
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicGuyNY

Guest
Joseph Smith once said “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”. What does this mean? What is the criteria for “acting as” a prophet? When Brigham Young spoke about the “Adam-God theory” in General Conference, was he “acting as” a prophet? Why or why not?
 
From what I can tell by this forum, they always speak as a prophet unless, years later, what they said has been proven to be wrong, crazy, or if the lds church tries to become more mainstream.
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
(1) Joseph Smith once said “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”. What does this mean? What is the criteria for “acting as” a prophet?

(2) When Brigham Young spoke about the “Adam-God theory” in General Conference, was he “acting as” a prophet? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
As I understand the concept and as exemplified in the scriptures:

(1) When a prophet speaks “for God” to either the people on the earth in general, or to the LDS believers who have received the witness of the Holy Ghost about that prophet and about their own testimony of Jesus, then if he does so by the authority of God and under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost at that moment in time, then he is speaking “for God.” If he gives his own opinion about a subject without being specifically directed by God to speak under God’s authority and direction on that subject, then he is speaking as “a man” and should be regarded as having given his own opinion. Especially is this true under circumstances where his statement of opinion is not reflective of the united voice of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, whose calling and authority includes the calling to protect the doctrinal purity brought forth for the LDS members to gain wisdom from studying and following.

(2) He was speaking his own opinion, as “a man.” He did not have the united sanction of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for teaching on that particular subject, nor was his opinion presented for a sustaining vote by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or by the members of the church which would need to happen if such a teaching were to need to be viewed as doctrinally correct since it reflected a significant change in doctrine from what Joseph Smith had taught and what the Bible or other scriptures taught on the subject.

That example illustrates the vital importance of having a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in place, with the keys of authority placed upon them through their having been ordained as such, so that they exercise a role of preserving doctrinal purity through needing to come to agreement if one or more of those particular leaders or the First Presidency has an idea in mind that is a doctrinal change and thus needs discussion and, if it were doctrinally pure through the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, needs to be voted upon for the sustaining vote of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and of the members of the LDS church in General Conference. If it were a doctrinal matter that reflected a change, it would be presented in that way in that the Quorum of the Twelve would have discussed and voted upon the matter in advance of General Conference, and it would be presented for the sustaining vote of the general membership of the LDS church.
 
Like I said, we have seen a lot of silly and utterly amazing things lds prophets have said as prophets that the lds church runs headlong away from now
 
ParkerD said:
As I understand the concept and as exemplified in the scriptures:

(1) When a prophet speaks “for God” to either the people on the earth in general, or to the LDS believers who have received the witness of the Holy Ghost about that prophet and about their own testimony of Jesus, then if he does so by the authority of God and under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost at that moment in time, then he is speaking “for God.” If he gives his own opinion about a subject without being specifically directed by God to speak under God’s authority and direction on that subject, then he is speaking as “a man” and should be regarded as having given his own opinion. Especially is this true under circumstances where his statement of opinion is not reflective of the united voice of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, whose calling and authority includes the calling to protect the doctrinal purity brought forth for the LDS members to gain wisdom from studying and following.

(2) He was speaking his own opinion, as “a man.” He did not have the united sanction of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for teaching on that particular subject, nor was his opinion presented for a sustaining vote by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or by the members of the church which would need to happen if such a teaching were to need to be viewed as doctrinally correct since it reflected a significant change in doctrine from what Joseph Smith had taught and what the Bible or other scriptures taught on the subject.

That example illustrates the vital importance of having a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in place, with the keys of authority placed upon them through their having been ordained as such, so that they exercise a role of preserving doctrinal purity through needing to come to agreement if one or more of those particular leaders or the First Presidency has an idea in mind that is a doctrinal change and thus needs discussion and, if it were doctrinally pure through the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, needs to be voted upon for the sustaining vote of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and of the members of the LDS church in General Conference. If it were a doctrinal matter that reflected a change, it would be presented in that way in that the Quorum of the Twelve would have discussed and voted upon the matter in advance of General Conference, and it would be presented for the sustaining vote of the general membership of the LDS church.
Click to expand...
Most readers (at least readers who are familiar with the United States Constitution and its origin) are familiar with the concept of “balance of powers” and the concept of “checks and balances”. The idea of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles being a governing quorum that acts as a “check and balance” for preserving doctrinal purity would in a rough manner of comparison, be like the Supreme Court. They meet. They disagree with each other from time to time. They consider doctrinal (constitutional) principles and foundation documents (scriptures). They have the basis for receiving guidance from the Holy Ghost, but also the basis for the wisdom they have gleaned through years of experience. These are a key, major, significant part of the check and balance system that preserves doctrinal purity yet allows for changes in doctrinal positions at a certain point in time as inspired by God through the Holy Ghost, such as with the issue of blacks being ordained to the priesthood.

The perfect plan for the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ included that very Quorum of Twelve Apostles during the latter days, living on the earth to exercise the keys of authority to both bind on earth and in heaven and to preserve on earth the doctrinal purity of the teachings that go forth sanctioned and sustained as doctrines for guiding humankind toward exaltation, as planned by God before this world was organized.
 
As the quotes from LDS leaders on this board show, these “prophets” are not led by God. And their “prophesies” and “doctrine” change frequently as it becomes clear what they have said is either false, wrong, or horribly misleading
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
Joseph Smith once said “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”. What does this mean? What is the criteria for “acting as” a prophet? When Brigham Young spoke about the “Adam-God theory” in General Conference, was he “acting as” a prophet? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
I talk to Mormons all the time and a good rule of thumb is that whenever a prophet says something that Mormons have been trained to defend, he’s a prophet. When he says something that causes questions a Mormon can’t answer, then he’s just speaking as a regular person.
 
Danny_Clover said:
I talk to Mormons all the time and a good rule of thumb is that whenever a prophet says something that Mormons have been trained to defend, he’s a prophet. When he says something that causes questions a Mormon can’t answer, then he’s just speaking as a regular person.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
ParkerD said:
As I understand the concept and as exemplified in the scriptures:

(1) When a prophet speaks “for God” to either the people on the earth in general, or to the LDS believers who have received the witness of the Holy Ghost about that prophet and about their own testimony of Jesus, then if he does so by the authority of God and under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost at that moment in time, then he is speaking “for God.” If he gives his own opinion about a subject without being specifically directed by God to speak under God’s authority and direction on that subject, then he is speaking as “a man” and should be regarded as having given his own opinion. Especially is this true under circumstances where his statement of opinion is not reflective of the united voice of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, whose calling and authority includes the calling to protect the doctrinal purity brought forth for the LDS members to gain wisdom from studying and following.

(2) He was speaking his own opinion, as “a man.” He did not have the united sanction of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for teaching on that particular subject, nor was his opinion presented for a sustaining vote by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or by the members of the church which would need to happen if such a teaching were to need to be viewed as doctrinally correct since it reflected a significant change in doctrine from what Joseph Smith had taught and what the Bible or other scriptures taught on the subject.

That example illustrates the vital importance of having a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in place, with the keys of authority placed upon them through their having been ordained as such, so that they exercise a role of preserving doctrinal purity through needing to come to agreement if one or more of those particular leaders or the First Presidency has an idea in mind that is a doctrinal change and thus needs discussion and, if it were doctrinally pure through the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, needs to be voted upon for the sustaining vote of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and of the members of the LDS church in General Conference. If it were a doctrinal matter that reflected a change, it would be presented in that way in that the Quorum of the Twelve would have discussed and voted upon the matter in advance of General Conference, and it would be presented for the sustaining vote of the general membership of the LDS church.
Click to expand...
Thanks for replying.

Using this criteria, doesn’t this mean that Gordon B. Hinckley never spoke as a prophet, or that President Monson has yet to speak as a prophet? Gospel Principles states that “the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.” When Monson spoke at the last General Conference, for example, were his words inspired?

Also, reiterating the above I think, when did Gordon B. Hinckley ever “speak as a prophet”, and how do we know?
 
It is a title that is given to a man in a line of succession based on who’s been around the longest. Mormon “prophets” never speak anything that is prophetic. But it makes mormons feel good to listen to him, talk about what he says for about 6 months, when they’ll get more advice to obey the “prophet”, pay tithing, and with assorted common sense “advice” thrown in (ie stay out debt).

They especially like it when their “prophet” tells them how right they are and how wrong everyone else is.

The power of suggestion is a powerful thing, and lds employee it often.
 
RebeccaJ said:
It is a title that is given to a man in a line of succession based on who’s been around the longest. Mormon “prophets” never speak anything that is prophetic. But it makes mormons feel good to listen to him, talk about what he says for about 6 months, when they’ll get more advice to obey the “prophet”, pay tithing, and assorted common sense “advice”.

They especially like it when their “prophet” tells them how right they are and how wrong everyone else is.

The power of suggestion is a powerful thing, and lds employee it often.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what I’m really trying to understand. The Biblical prophets were called prophets, and they acted as such. So, as an example, when did Gordon B. Hinckley act as a prophet.

Let us not also forget that the rest of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, so there are 15 prophets in the LDS church at any given time. So, when have these men acted as prophets? It seems like, if anything, they would have the capacity to act as prophets, but don’t.
 
For Catholics, Jesus is our Prophet, Priest and King. LDS are always looking for something more then Jesus Christ. 🤷
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
Thanks for replying.

Using this criteria, doesn’t this mean that Gordon B. Hinckley never spoke as a prophet, or that President Monson has yet to speak as a prophet? Gospel Principles states that “the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.” When Monson spoke at the last General Conference, for example, were his words inspired?

Also, reiterating the above I think, when did Gordon B. Hinckley ever “speak as a prophet”, and how do we know?
Click to expand...
He used his prophetic authority to authorize the “Perpetual Education Fund” which has been a great blessing to many people. He used his prophetic authority to present the “Proclamation on the Family” to the church and later to the world for those willing to read it and understand it. He used his prophetic authority to warn against the calamities and disasters that were going to come, and warn the members of the church to have minimal debt and to save for a “rainy day” in their life. He warned that those who overextended in debt would regret the consequences.

President Monson uses his prophetic authority to inspire members to care for the aged, and to provide humanitarian service in many, many places in the world. Those who see the signs of the times are well aware of his guiding counsel to help them be prepared for those hard times that are still coming in the world. Often it is a reiteration of those things already prophesied by earlier prophets of long ago. The messages to come unto Christ and love our fellow men are messages that always bear repeating, and as the prophets and apostles bear witness of those messages, our soul can be lifted and impacted and our lives changed if we gain our own personal witness and allow the Holy Ghost to bring out lives into covenant making and covenant keeping. A covenant becomes a binding promise that lifts our soul heavenward.
 
unless a few years from now, we find out what he said is bunk, then what Monson said will be "opinion’

That is how it has always been with LDS “prophets”
 
ParkerD said:
He used his prophetic authority to authorize the “Perpetual Education Fund” which has been a great blessing to many people. He used his prophetic authority to present the “Proclamation on the Family” to the church and later to the world for those willing to read it and understand it. He used his prophetic authority to warn against the calamities and disasters that were going to come, and warn the members of the church to have minimal debt and to save for a “rainy day” in their life. He warned that those who overextended in debt would regret the consequences.

President Monson uses his prophetic authority to inspire members to care for the aged, and to provide humanitarian service in many, many places in the world. Those who see the signs of the times are well aware of his guiding counsel to help them be prepared for those hard times that are still coming in the world. Often it is a reiteration of those things already prophesied by earlier prophets of long ago. The messages to come unto Christ and love our fellow men are messages that always bear repeating, and as the prophets and apostles bear witness of those messages, our soul can be lifted and impacted and our lives changed if we gain our own personal witness and allow the Holy Ghost to bring out lives into covenant making and covenant keeping. A covenant becomes a binding promise that lifts our soul heavenward.
Click to expand...
Who has declared these as being uses of “prophetic authority”? So President Monson was speaking as a prophet when he “inspire[d] members to care for the aged, and to provide humanitarian service in many, many places in the world”? Was what he said put up to a sustaining vote?
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
Who has declared these as being uses of “prophetic authority”? So President Monson was speaking as a prophet when he “inspire[d] members to care for the aged, and to provide humanitarian service in many, many places in the world”? Was what he said put up to a sustaining vote?
Click to expand...
He was sustained as an apostle, sustained as the president of the church, and is sustained by vote of the members each April.

There has been no “change” in doctrinal direction that would require a special sustaining vote such as occurred under President Kimball in 1978. But there is a sustaining vote nonetheless, each April during General Conference in the Saturday afternoon session, which you may watch to see that it does happen. It is an easy set of links to follow on lds.org.
 
ParkerD said:
He was sustained as an apostle, sustained as the president of the church, and is sustained by vote of the members each April.

There has been no “change” in doctrinal direction that would require a special sustaining vote such as occurred under President Kimball in 1978. But there is a sustaining vote nonetheless, each April during General Conference in the Saturday afternoon session, which you may watch to see that it does happen. It is an easy set of links to follow on lds.org.
Click to expand...
give it a few years. Mormons already run away from things past leaders have said and done
 
A false prophecy was the certain sign of a false prophet according to Ezekiel 13:9. Joseph Smith made a number of patently false prophecies. How is this ‘circle squared’ by Mormons? Is this a bit of the bible that has been ‘mistranslated’ by bad men who knew that Joseph was coming and would make a few mistakes?
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
Joseph Smith once said “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”. What does this mean? What is the criteria for “acting as” a prophet? When Brigham Young spoke about the “Adam-God theory” in General Conference, was he “acting as” a prophet? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
Lets look at the old testament and the prophets in the old testament. They said many things but on the other hand there also said things that we have no record of because the people writing the old teatment included what they wanted people to read. But I think that it is a given that these prophets said many things that are not in the bible. We have a different situation within mormonism. We have reported speech of what Joseph Smith said. And also for Brigham Young. It is more intune with our time frame and not so far into the past. Now it would be wonderful to find reported speech of what some of the prophets said in the old testament. But no such luck. We just have the biblical account.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top