When is the Mormon Prophet Speaking as a Prophet?

[DCNBILL]

DCNBILL,
Please see the following passages:

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,…

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
…
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,

Romans 1: 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:

Peter and Paul use the same introduction patterns, and Peter refers to Paul’s “epistles” as though they are “scripture” although he says they are sometimes “hard to be understood”. He does not differentiate that his own personal use of the word “apostle” to describe his own calling is any different than the introductions Paul used in his epistles. They both consider themselves “called of God, and not of men” with a calling that is specific–that of being an “apostle”.

Have a good day. It appears that Peter and Paul were good friends, and respected each other greatly.

That is a lot of typing, I will give you that, but at no point anywhere does Peter denote Paul as one of The Twelve.

 

[ParkerD]

That is a lot of typing, I will give you that, but at no point anywhere does Peter denote Paul as one of The Twelve.

DCNBILL,
So in your mind, someone who was acknowledging that Paul was “one of The Twelve” would write in such a way as to show that, and wouldn’t just write “an Apostle”? It seems more logical to me that if there were a distinction to be made, that either Paul or Peter would have made the distinction. This is fair logic.

However, your logic can be used to substantiate the position you have chosen to take.

I simply disagree, and find not a single case that differentiates from the logic that says “apostle” means a particular and distinctive calling into the position that was set up by Christ for carrying the gospel to the world, of which there were twelve when He called them and (logically speaking) twelve when Paul was called by God to the position of Apostle.

(Incidentally, I was able to grab those scriptures using an online scripture database feature. I assume most internet users are familiar with those. So I didn’t do “a lot of typing” although I sometimes do type a verse if it’s easier at the time.)

 

[Stephen168]

Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

 

[SirThomasMore]

DCNBILL,
So in your mind, someone who was acknowledging that Paul was “one of The Twelve” would write in such a way as to show that, and wouldn’t just write “an Apostle”? It seems more logical to me that if there were a distinction to be made, that either Paul or Peter would have made the distinction. This is fair logic.

Actually, that is faulty logic. Lets say you have 11 starters on defense on a football team. If I call one of the non-starts a player (which he is) does that somehow logically mean he is one of the starters? Absolutely not. You can be a player, but not a starter, you can be an Apostle, but not one of the 12. You have failed to provide any proof that Paul was named as one of the 12

However, your logic can be used to substantiate the position you have chosen to take.

As can yours, apparenrly, since you use it to take numerous faulty positions

I

 

[DCNBILL]

ParkerD;6702913:

DCNBILL,
So in your mind, someone who was acknowledging that Paul was “one of The Twelve” would write in such a way as to show that, and wouldn’t just write “an Apostle”? It seems more logical to me that if there were a distinction to be made, that either Paul or Peter would have made the distinction

. This is fair logic.

Actually, that is faulty logic. Lets say you have 11 starters on defense on a football team. If I call one of the non-starts a player (which he is) does that somehow logically mean he is one of the starters? Absolutely not. You can be a player, but not a starter, you can be an Apostle, but not one of the 12. You have failed to provide any proof that Paul was named as one of the 12

However, your logic can be used to substantiate the position you have chosen to take.

As can yours, apparenrly, since you use it to take numerous faulty positions

I

STM, Your point and Stephens are very good, but as this is off topic, I would rather hear about the original question.

Parker, thank you also for your perspective on the apostles from the Mormon position.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I believe that we are still waiting for zerinus to provide the definition of what a prophet is and why the Pope makes claims of a prophet (without calling himself a prophet). I would also like to know where in the Bible it states that all apostles are also prophets. The verses provided so far (Acts 13:1 and Acts 15:32) state no such thing.

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6703030:

STM, Your point and Stephens are very good, but as this is off topic, I would rather hear about the original question.

Parker, thank you also for your perspective on the apostles from the Mormon position.

My point only responded to an LDS point.

 

[Stephen168]

STM, Your point and Stephens are very good, but as this is off topic, I would rather hear about the original question.

My point was to the Mormon point but I guess to anyone who believes there were only 12 Apostles at any one time.

 

[DCNBILL]

Sorry I did not mean you guys were the cause of the off track stuff that was my fault, I just felt that since I started the deviation I would state that I am satisfied with the answers all has give.

Excellent responses both, by the way.

Did not mean to seem to point fingers, sorry.

 

[soren1]

You are very much mistaken. Although the literal meaning of the word apostle is “sent,” the scriptures make it clear that the word also applies to a certain office in the Church:

Luke 6:

13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.
Jesus had many disciples, all of whom could be described as having been “sent”. But there were only twelve ordained Apostles at any one time.

I’m not sure how carefully you have thought through what my thesis is, if you think this text is an objection to it. You would have a great argument here if I were saying that the Apostles were not office-holders in the Church, or slightly less absurdly, if I said that holding an office is irrelevant to being an Apostle. But I am not saying that. I am saying is that the title “Apostle” is the title of a Church office-holder, but it does not specify any particular office. This is proven from the fact that men with different offices are called “Apostle” in the New Testament; yet those men do have the common trait of being chosen for their office a direct encounter with God. The Twelve, therefore, were called Apostles by virtue of the office they held in the Church, which was not an office shared by everyone else, even those who did encounter Christ in the flesh. It is, therefore, consistent with my thesis that those disciples who were not made bishops in Luke 6:13 were not named Apostles, since they were not called at that time to an office.

Sorry, I meant Acts 13:1. Jesus also was a prophet, and Calls Himself such (Luke 13:33).

That Jesus was a prophet I do not dispute, and I could add proof-texts to the list, such as Acts 7:37-38 and the interpretation of Deut 18:15-19 in John 1:21 and 6:14. The point of my argument is not that Christ and the Apostle were not prophets, but that the prophetic office is not part of the definition of “Apostleship.” I argue this one two counts: first, from the lexical meaning of the words; second, and more importantly, from its usage in the New Testament. This is clear in the context of Hebrews, where Christ’s priesthood as the incarnate son of God justifies calling him an “Apostle” in itself, with no reference to prophethood assumed. Christ’s Apostleship warrants comparing him to Moses not because they were both prophets, but because they were both saviors.

Whether or nor Christ was a prophet is not actually relevant to my argument from Hebrews. If it were, it would actually help my case, because Christ is contrasted to the prophets in the first verses of the Epistle. This is not, I think, because he lacks the authority of prophets, but to show his definitive superiority to them. This adds to the case that Christ’s prophetic powers are not part of what Paul is signifying when he calls him an Apostle later one.

Paul was an Apostle but he had not been “with Christ”.

Paul was called by Christ on the road to Damascus, and therefore had been with the resurrected Lord. He is therefore an Apostle.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Apostle means one who is sent as a messenger. Many have been sent, and are called ‘apostle’. We call Mary Magdalen the apostle to the apostles, as she was sent by Jesus as the messenger to the 11. This does not make her one of the Twelve.

 

[lax16]

DCNBILL,
So in your mind, someone who was acknowledging that Paul was “one of The Twelve” would write in such a way as to show that, and wouldn’t just write “an Apostle”? It seems more logical to me that if there were a distinction to be made, that either Paul or Peter would have made the distinction. This is fair logic.

However, your logic can be used to substantiate the position you have chosen to take.

I simply disagree, and find not a single case that differentiates from the logic that says “apostle” means a particular and distinctive calling into the position that was set up by Christ for carrying the gospel to the world, of which there were twelve when He called them and (logically speaking) twelve when Paul was called by God to the position of Apostle.

(Incidentally, I was able to grab those scriptures using an online scripture database feature. I assume most internet users are familiar with those. So I didn’t do “a lot of typing” although I sometimes do type a verse if it’s easier at the time.)

Parker - The Douay-Rheims explains St. Paul being called “apostle” in 1 Timothy:1 as:

Ch 1… As this letter was to be read to the faithtful, it was proper that S. Paul should speak with dignity and authority; and, as in the course of it he reproves false apostles who taught from themselves, he reminds them at the beginning of his letter, that he himself had entered the sacred ministry, and was an apostle by the command of God.

 

[lax16]

(1) Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law, but if you’re saying that everything prophesied in the Old Testament was fulfilled either before or during New Testament times, then I strongly disagree. (I assume you don’t mean that the Old Testament shouldn’t be studied at all. Peter quoted from the Old Testament in his epistles. Paul referred to Old Testament prophecies that were yet to be fulfilled.)

I don’t know where I said everything prophesied was fulfilled?
I wouldn’t discourage anyone from studying the Old or New Testament. I am the one who likes to discuss the fact that Christianity/Catholicism is a fulfillment of the OT prohecy and that we cannot change OT teachings then claim to be Christian. Many things that Mormons teach are in direct opposition to Jewish teachings.

(2) Here was a quote from Catholic-rcia (his post #214 on the subject of “Mormon Claims”)

“Being with Jesus” is not “being like Jesus”. Jesus is “like God.” I’m sure you understand the implication. A is like B. B is like C. Therefore, A is like C. The word “like” can be replaced with the word “as”.

I know that Catholic-rcia has already clarified his/her point on this. I have never heard of a Catholic that doesn’t feel s/he has to strive to be Christ-like.

(3) So long as the context is clear, I am fine with what you wrote about apostles being “prophets.”

(4) We just have a far different view of the role of prophets and apostles than it appears you have. Joshus was told to teach the people what Moses had taught them. He didn’t have to come up with “new material” to be considered a prophet.

He didn’t CHANGE anything. He was continuing on what Moses had started. Mormon prophets have changed everything, from the idea that God has a body to God’s Church has fallen apart and needs a human to fix it.

LDS consider Peter to have been a prophet, and John. Peter didn’t come up with new material, but he taught with conviction and testimony and the ability to say, “follow my example as we all follow Christ.” John did bring new material to the world. It just depends on the need–not on the definition of “prophet.”

Exactly. You will not find a Catholic/Christian prophet who came up with anything new. Therefore, the LDS definition of prophet is new and is their own, not backed up by Old or New Testament prophets.

(5) I said it depends on what the leaders teach–not on which church they belong to.
I pointed you to Hosea. You apparently think his prophecy was already completely fulfilled, and Isaiah’s, and Daniel’s. I don’t. Some Old Testament prophecies are about the Second Coming. They are also significantly about the time when all the tribes of Israel will be united as one covenant nation, and will know who they are (Ephraim will know of being descendants of Ephraim, for example.)

I am not sure where I said this?

If the goal is less than becoming “Christ-like” or “like Christ” in every way except His suffering, then the goal has been changed than what He taught about, so from that standpoint, the adversary has trimmed the goal even though ultimately everyone will find and achieve what they really wanted. So even though the pure doctrine and pure covenants may be missing within a set of beliefs (and God allowed that to happen through other sources than Himself and Christ and the Holy Spirit), people following those beliefs will arrive at what they deeply desire, so it’s OK by me.

We already discussed the words “like Christ”, and what it means. That is the major “away from” situation. It changes the goal. Faith is intertwined with belief that such a goal is possible and is desired by Christ, for us. One cannot gain the faith necessary to be “like Christ” if they don’t have that as the goal. They are intertwined.

(6) Here are two:
Not considering John as the ranking leader of the earthly church after the deaths of the other apostles.

Jesus picked Peter Parker. I don’t know why that bothers LDS except that it proves the Catholic Church is the True Church.

Any writing that suggested Peter held or holds the “key of David.”

This has been discussed on another thread at length. I have some very interesting research to present on this topic when I get the time.

Have a good day.

I will try - I have been sick. You too!

 

[ParkerD]

(1) I understand the meaning of the scripture. I don’t know why LDS have to re-live the OT when Jesus Christ fulfilled the covenant??

I don’t know where I said everything prophesied was fulfilled?
I wouldn’t discourage anyone from studying the Old or New Testament. I am the one who likes to discuss the fact that Christianity/Catholicism is a fulfillment of the OT prohecy and that we cannot change OT teachings then claim to be Christian. Many things that Mormons teach are in direct opposition to Jewish teachings.

I know that Catholic-rcia has already clarified his/her point on this. I have never heard of a Catholic that doesn’t feel s/he has to strive to be Christ-like.

He didn’t CHANGE anything. He was continuing on what Moses had started. Mormon prophets have changed everything, from the idea that God has a body to God’s Church has fallen apart and needs a human to fix it.

Exactly. You will not find a Catholic/Christian prophet who came up with anything new. Therefore, the LDS definition of prophet is new and is their own, not backed up by Old or New Testament prophets.

I am not sure where I said this?

Jesus picked Peter Parker. I don’t know why that bothers LDS except that it proves the Catholic Church is the True Church.

This has been discussed on another thread at length. I have some very interesting research to present on this topic when I get the time.

Lax16,
I need to run, but I had taken the time to begin a response to all these so here is the beginning of it, putting all your quotes together including the one that I evidently had misunderstood about your “use” of the Old Testament and questioning the LDS “use” of it. (I still don’t understand your point, or your question.)

If I don’t get back, take care and I hope you get well.

 

[ParkerD]

(1) I understand the meaning of the scripture. I don’t know why LDS have to re-live the OT when Jesus Christ fulfilled the covenant??

I don’t know where I said everything prophesied was fulfilled?
I wouldn’t discourage anyone from studying the Old or New Testament. I am the one who likes to discuss the fact that Christianity/Catholicism is a fulfillment of the OT prohecy and that we cannot change OT teachings then claim to be Christian. Many things that Mormons teach are in direct opposition to Jewish teachings.

I know that Catholic-rcia has already clarified his/her point on this. I have never heard of a Catholic that doesn’t feel s/he has to strive to be Christ-like.

He didn’t CHANGE anything. He was continuing on what Moses had started. Mormon prophets have changed everything, from the idea that God has a body to God’s Church has fallen apart and needs a human to fix it.

Exactly. You will not find a Catholic/Christian prophet who came up with anything new. Therefore, the LDS definition of prophet is new and is their own, not backed up by Old or New Testament prophets.

I am not sure where I said this?

Jesus picked Peter Parker. I don’t know why that bothers LDS except that it proves the Catholic Church is the True Church.

This has been discussed on another thread at length. I have some very interesting research to present on this topic when I get the time.

Lax16,
I guess I didn’t understand what you meant by the words “re-live the Old Testament”, so I guess we had a disconnect.

Jewish teachings were in a state of apostasy, which is what Christ was repeatedly telling the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the scribes. So it means nothing to me that parts of what the Jews were teaching at the time “are in direct opposition.” I would expect that they would be.

The word “like” means “having the same, or nearly the same, appearance, qualities, or characteristics; similar.” That is what I meant. Christ is “like” the Father. We are to become “like Christ.” That would mean to “have the same, or nearly the same, qualities or characteristics.” That is what I completely agree should be the goal, and should be the outcome as best a person can do every day and then in the next life there will be more learning going on to reach the point of being “like Christ”, including having enabling grace. But the disconnect is that Christ is both perfect and is God the Son, meaning to be like Him is to really be like God the Son. It is to have the same qualities or characteristics.

God fixed it, not humans or a human. He followed the Old Testament and New Testament prophecies in doing so.

If you’re saying that John didn’t come up with anything new, then I completely disagree. As to the definition of the word prophet, that is amply done in the Old and New Testaments, and does not mean “one who comes up with new prophecies.”

I understand the meaning of the scripture. I don’t know why LDS have to re-live the OT when Jesus Christ fulfilled the covenant??

The above was your quote, not mine. I thought you were discounting the need to study the Old Testament (not “re-live” it–whatever you meant by those words).

Jesus picked Twelve Apostles, not just Peter. It doesn’t bother me at all that He chose to do that. I think it was very wise to do that.

We’re probably at an impasse on all this.

God bless, and peace always. Adieu.

 

[PaulDupre]

Mormons have been conditioned from birth to think “apostles = the twelve”. Actually, “apostle” means “one who is sent”, in other words a missionary. All of the twelve (those who were called by Jesus as special eye-witnesses of his life, death and resurrection) were “apostles” in that they were sent out to preach. But God called, commissioned and “sent” many others in addition to the twelve. Paul was one of these who was “sent” (an apostle) as were Barnabas and Silas. But Paul did not qualify to be one of the twelve (see below).

After Judas defected and committed suicide, Peter determined that they should elect a successor so that the church could be inaugurated by twelve eye-witnesses as Jesus had intended:

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

• Acts 1:21-22

Paul did not qualify to be one of the twelve, and neither does any modern man. To think otherwise is to call Peter and the bible liars.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

Sorry Catholic, I must have missed this post.

I believe that we are still waiting for zerinus to provide the definition of what a prophet is and why the Pope makes claims of a prophet (without calling himself a prophet).

A prophet is ultimately anyone who has the spirit of prophecy, which according to John the Revelator is the “testimony of Jesus”:

Revelation 19:

10 . . . I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

A prophet is also God’s agent or representative here on earth, and speaks or acts on His behalf in the service of mankind. The Pope makes all those claims.

I would also like to know where in the Bible it states that all apostles are also prophets. The verses provided so far (Acts 13:1 and Acts 15:32) state no such thing.

Acts 13 is as follows:

Acts 13:

1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

Saul is the same as Paul, before his name change. He was an Apostle as well as a prophet. An Apostle’s calling is greater than that of a prophet, and embodies within it the calling of a prophet:

1 Corinthians 12:

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Anyone can be a prophet, or have this gift; hence Paul admonishes all church members to “covet” this gift:

1 Corinthians 14:

39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

It would be odd for Paul to advise all church members to covet this gift, but fail to covet it himself. Hence, Apostles are also prophets.

To Timothy Paul wrote:

1 Timothy 4:

14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Timothy was ordained a bishop, probably by Paul himself. And Paul tells him that his ordination was carried out by the gift or spirit and power of prophecy. If the “presbytery” did not include the gift of prophecy, he could not have ordained Timothy “by prophecy”. Hence, not only the Pope, but all Catholic bishops have to be prophet, otherwise they could not ordain anybody to the ministry. It has to be done “by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” as Timothy was ordained, otherwise it is not a valid ordination.

The spirit of prophecy is also a spirit of revelation, by which one can know the mind and will of God, and understand His “mysteries”:

1 Corinthians 13:

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; . . .

Even Jesus is identified in the scriptures as a prophet (Luke 13:33; Acts 3:22; 7:37). Having a higher office does not preclude one from having a lower one. On the contrary, the lower office is usually included in the higher office. Hence Apostles are also prophets–and so is the Pope, if his claims are valid.

 

[Returning_Home]

A prophet is ultimately anyone who has the spirit of prophecy, which according to John the Revelator is the “testimony of Jesus”

A prophet is also God’s agent or representative here on earth, and speaks or acts on His behalf in the service of mankind.

The spirit of prophecy is also a spirit of revelation, by which one can know the mind and will of God, and understand His “mysteries”

Using this as the basis for your claims, can you tell me how many false prophecies it takes to be a false prophet? And how is it that Smith made error after error and yet is still considered a ‘prophet?’

 

[SirThomasMore]

as we have proven, LDS folks are not prophets. The early leaders proved that with their racist comments, their idiotic prophesies (like man would NEVER get to the moon) about Adam being God, etc etc etc

 

[Returning_Home]

as we have proven, LDS folks are not prophets. The early leaders proved that with their racist comments, their idiotic prophesies (like man would NEVER get to the moon) about Adam being God, etc etc etc

And don’t forget that Brigham Young clearly said that blacks wouldn’t be freed by the Civil War.