No More Prophets?

[curtishouse]

I know I'm going pretty buck wild with the questions this weekend but this is also a very important topic especially in the LDS church. The LDS church obviously believes that prophets are still around today. What do you make of these verses then?

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

Edited November 8, 2009 by curtishouse
Added another verse

[bytebear]

The phrase "the Law and the prophets" was a common reference to the Old Testament law which was being fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The phrase or a variation of it appear 11 times in the New Testament (Matt 5:17 being the most interesting), and in context it is clear that the context is not about prophecy ending, but rather an ending to the OT law as it is fulfilled in Christ. If you think about it, how could John be the revelator, or Paul have a miraculous conversion, or Stephen have a vision of God and Christ if prophecy were to end with Christ. John in the book of Revelation specifically talks about prophets in the last days.

Amos 3:7

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

[Misshalfway]

I was going to say something very similar. Maybe I will just ask .... why did Jesus call the twelve as the first order of business if he no longer wanted prophets? Why did he call Peter and give him authority? Prophets must have been important, as did the authority they possessed to act in the name of Christ when he was no longer there to lead the church.

My question for the rest of mainstream Christianity is where the heck are the 12?

[prisonchaplain]

To Curtis--this is the first I've heard of Protestant Christians saying that prophets ended with John. I'm perplexed because prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit detailed in the 1st letter to the Corinthians. Further, the prophet Joel declared that in the last days men and women would prophecy, and when the Holy Ghost descended on the believers on the Day of Pentecost, Peter declared, "This is that which was prophesied by Joel."

To Misshalfway...Protestant Christianity has not interpreted the New Testament in such a way as to project a hierarchical church governance with 12 apostles in perpetuity. We do carry on the Apostles' teaching, however. Now my church does have leadership that my roughly parallel the Prophet, the 12, and the 70. But, I don't believe that even the Catholic church has attempted to maintain 12 apostles.

One thought I've heard (have not researched it deeply) is that an apostle was akin to a missionary today. They started churches, and traveled to spread the Good News of the Kingdom. If so, you have 60,000 apostles. We have 1600. :-)

[Misshalfway]

I know, PC. I know. Getting another explanatory answer wasn't why I asked the question.

Curtis....And just to add something to the LDS view of prophets, you may want to look at Mosiah 8:16-18 as we think that a prophet, seer and revelator is more than just a prophet.

[BenRaines]

While in the LDS church the Apostles are those twelve called to be Prophets, Seers and Revelators, their calling also is as a "Special Witness of Christ".

Ben Raines

[Just_A_Guy]

The phrase "the Law and the prophets" was a common reference to the Old Testament law which was being fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The phrase or a variation of it appear 11 times in the New Testament (Matt 5:17 being the most interesting), and in context it is clear that the context is not about prophecy ending, but rather an ending to the OT law as it is fulfilled in Christ.

To flesh this out a bit, per Wikipedia:

The Tanakh (Hebrew: תַּנַ"ךְ‎, pronounced [taˈnax] or [təˈnax]; also Tenakh or Tenak) is a name for the Bible used in Judaism, also known as the Masoretic Text. The name "Tanakh" is a Hebrew acronym formed from the initial Hebrew letters of the Masoretic Text's three traditional subdivisions: The Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses[a.k.a. "Law"--JAG]), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")—hence TaNaKh.

[curtishouse]

I was going to say something very similar. Maybe I will just ask .... why did Jesus call the twelve as the first order of business if he no longer wanted prophets? Why did he call Peter and give him authority? Prophets must have been important, as did the authority they possessed to act in the name of Christ when he was no longer there to lead the church.

My question for the rest of mainstream Christianity is where the heck are the 12?

My personal view is that the 12 Apostles were chosen to spread the Gospel. As shown by the greek meaning of Apostles which is:

apostolos

ap-os'-tol-os

From G649; a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ (“apostle”), (with miraculous powers): - apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

I guess this begs the question of what is the difference between an Apostle and a Prophet?

[pam]

An apostle is one that serves as a special witness of Jesus Christ.

A prophet has the same responsibilities as an apostle but the prophet is the only one that can receive revelation to guide the entire Church.

[curtishouse]

To Curtis--this is the first I've heard of Protestant Christians saying that prophets ended with John.

I'm not predisposed to any one set of beliefs because I go to a Baptist church. I try to keep an open mind when it comes to doctrine. If there is Biblical backing to support a claim, I'm all for it. :)

[bytebear]

My personal view is that the 12 Apostles were chosen to spread the Gospel. As shown by the greek meaning of Apostles which is:

apostolos

ap-os'-tol-os

From G649; a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ (“apostle”), (with miraculous powers): - apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

I guess this begs the question of what is the difference between an Apostle and a Prophet?

An apostle is an office of the priesthood, A prophet (or rather the ability to prophesy) is a gift from God. But, when one is ordained to the office of Apostle, part of that authority is to be a prophet, seer and revelator. So, all apostles (including the first presidency) are prophets.

But you are right on the role of an Apostle. They are ambassadors of the Gospel.

[pam]

An apostle is an office of the priesthood, A prophet (or rather the ability to prophesy) is a gift from God. But, when one is ordained to the office of Apostle, part of that authority is to be a prophet, seer and revelator. So, all apostles (including the first presidency) are prophets.

Again..the prophet is the only one that receives revelation to guide the entire church.

[curtishouse]

An apostle is one that serves as a special witness of Jesus Christ.

A prophet has the same responsibilities as an apostle but the prophet is the only one that can receive revelation to guide the entire Church.

That definitely makes sense Pam and I have no dispute with that at all. I guess what it comes down to is how do you know if it truly is a revelation from God because there have been many throughout history to have claimed that they received a revelation from God and nothing could have been further from the truth. This is completely a sincere question. How do you know that a Prophet truly is one and the revelation he speaks of is truly from God?

[pam]

Actually that is an excellent question. Let me ponder on this one for a few minutes.

[BenRaines]

We are always counseled to seek confirmation by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost can only and will only bear witness to truth. Confirmation of spirit.

Ben Raines

[curtishouse]

We are always counseled to seek confirmation by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost can only and will only bear witness to truth. Confirmation of spirit.

Ben Raines

What happens when two people seek confirmation from the Holy Ghost and still are on opposite sides of the spectrum so to speak?

[bytebear]

Again..the prophet is the only one that receives revelation to guide the entire church.

Except when he dies, that authority goes to the 12 Apostles. But to clarify, the president of the church holds all the keys of the kingdom, and the 12 Apostles hold the keys collectively, but the ordination of Apostle is held equally among them.

Simply put, they are all ordained Apostles, but you are set apart in a specific role (as President, as one of the 12 apostles, or as a counselor to the President).

[Misshalfway]

And.....there can be only one person who holds the keys and is authorized to use all the keys on the earth at a time. There can't be two sets of 12 in two different places.

[bytebear]

That definitely makes sense Pam and I have no dispute with that at all. I guess what it comes down to is how do you know if it truly is a revelation from God because there have been many throughout history to have claimed that they received a revelation from God and nothing could have been further from the truth. This is completely a sincere question. How do you know that a Prophet truly is one and the revelation he speaks of is truly from God?

The simple answer, is you follow his guidance, and find how it blesses your life. Live the Gospel and you will know it's true.

[bytebear]

And.....there can be only one person who holds the keys and is authorized to use all the keys on the earth at a time. There can't be two sets of 12 in two different places.

Well, not now because we are a global church, but Peter held the keys in Israel at the same time that the Nephites held the keys in America but they were stewards of two separate lands. I suspect there may be lost tribes who may also have priesthood authority over their tribe until the gathering, but that is speculation, and it goes deeper than this discussion. Suffice to say, Apostles hold the keys to the kingdom, and one is set apart to hold all the keys, and lead the church.

Edited November 9, 2009 by bytebear

[Misshalfway]

Well, not now because we are a global church, but Peter held the keys in Israel at the same time that the Nephites held the keys in America but they were stewards of two separate lands. I suspect there may be lost tribes who may also have priesthood authority over their tribe until the gathering, but that is speculation, and it goes deeper than this discussion. Suffice to say, Apostles hold the keys to the kingdom, and one is set apart to hold all the keys, and lead the church.

Good point. Thank you. i guess I was always taught that the 12 in the america's were "disciples" not apostles. But it's also pretty clear that folks like Mosiah were seers, of course that was before the time of Christ.

[Just_A_Guy]

What happens when two people seek confirmation from the Holy Ghost and still are on opposite sides of the spectrum so to speak?

Depends on who those two people are.

If one of them is me and one of them is you . . . no matter. We each go our paths, trusting in the revelation we have received and always making a sincere effort to gain greater revelation while simultaneously attempting to ensure that we are not deceived. I believe God will judge us primarily on our righteous motives and our sincere efforts to act on them.

If one of them is me and one of them is a church leader: well, in that case the authority of the leader acts as a check and balance against my own personal revelation (and vice-versa). If there's a deadlock . . . all I can do is study, pray, and hope that someday, somehow that deadlock will be resolved. But in the meantime, in matters of church policy, I defer to the authority of the leadership.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[ryanh]

Here is recounting by Hugh B. Brown regarding a conversation he had with someone that did not beleive there to be prophets on earth any longer. Even if not doctrinally based, or specifically addressing the two verses you quoted Curtis, still I thought it might be a worthwhile read.

I should like to be for a few minutes a witness in support of the proposition that the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored in our day and that this is His Church, which was organized under His direction through the Prophet Joseph Smith. I should like to give some reasons for the faith I have and for my allegiance to the Church. Perhaps I can do this more quickly by referring to an interview I had in London, England, in 1939, just before the outbreak of [World War II]. I had met a very prominent English gentleman, a member of the House of Commons, formerly one of the justices of the Supreme Court of England. In my conversations with this gentleman on various subjects, “vexations of the soul” he called them, we talked about business and law, about politics, international relations and war, and we frequently discussed religion. He called me on the phone one day and asked if I would meet him at his office and explain some phases of the gospel. He said: “I think there is going to be a war. If there is, you will have to return to America, and we may not meet again.” His statement regarding the imminence of war and the possibility that we would not meet again proved to be prophetic. When I went to his office, he said he was intrigued by some things I had told him. He asked me to prepare a brief on Mormonism … and discuss it with him as I would discuss a legal problem.

He said: “You have told me that you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. You have said to me that you believe that God the Father and Jesus of Nazareth appeared to Joseph Smith. I cannot understand how a barrister and solicitor from Canada, a man trained in logic and evidence, could accept such absurd statements. What you tell me about Joseph Smith seems fantastic, but I think you should take three days at least to prepare a brief and permit me to examine it and question you on it.”

I suggested that we proceed at once and have an examination for discovery, which is briefly a meeting of opposing sides in a lawsuit where the plaintiff and defendant, with their attorneys, meet to examine each other’s claims and see if they can find some area of agreement, thus saving the time of the court later on. I said perhaps we could see whether we had some common ground from which we could discuss my “fantastic” ideas. He agreed to that quite readily.

I can only give you, in the few minutes at my disposal, a condensed and abbreviated synopsis of the three-hour conversation which followed. In the interest of time I shall resort to the question-and-answer method rather than narration. I began by asking, “May I proceed, sir, on the assumption that you are a Christian?”

“I am.”

“I assume you believe in the Bible—the Old and New Testament?”

“I do!”

“Do you believe in prayer?”

“I do!”

“You say that my belief that God spoke to a man in this age is fantastic and absurd?”

“To me, it is.”

“Do you believe that God ever did speak to anyone?”

“Certainly. All through the Bible we have evidence of that.”

“Did He speak to Adam?”

“Yes.”

“To Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, and on through the prophets?”

“I believe He spoke to each of them.”

“Do you believe that contact between God and man ceased when Jesus appeared on the earth?”

“No, such communication reached its climax, its apex at that time.”

“Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God?”

“He was.”

“Do you believe, sir, that after Jesus was resurrected a certain lawyer, who was also a tent maker by the name of Saul of Tarsus, when on his way to Damascus, talked with Jesus of Nazareth, who had been crucified, resurrected, and had ascended into heaven?”

“I do.”

“Whose voice did Saul hear?”

“It was the voice of Jesus Christ, for He so introduced Himself.”

“Then, … I am submitting to you in all seriousness that it was standard procedure in Bible times for God to talk to man.”

“I think I will admit that, but it stopped shortly after the first century of the Christian era.”

“Why do you think it stopped?”

“I can’t say.”

“You think that God hasn’t spoken since then?”

“I am sure He hasn’t.”

“There must be a reason; can you give me a reason?”

“I do not know.”

“May I suggest some possible reasons: perhaps God does not speak to man anymore because He cannot. He has lost the power.”

He said, “Of course that would be blasphemous.”

“Well, then, if you don’t accept that, perhaps He doesn’t speak to men because He doesn’t love us anymore. He is no longer interested in the affairs of men.”

“No,” he said, “God loves all men, and He is no respecter of persons.”

“Well, then, if He could speak and if He loves us, then the only other possible answer, as I see it, is that we don’t need Him. We have made such rapid strides in science, we are so well educated, that we don’t need God anymore.”

And then he said, and his voice trembled as he thought of impending war: “Mr. Brown, there never was a time in the history of the world when the voice of God was needed as it is needed now. Perhaps you can tell me why He doesn’t speak.”

My answer was: “He does speak. He has spoken, but men need faith to hear Him.”

Given the rapid changes in society, and the signs that are being fulfilled of His coming, we need a prophet now as much as any time during the history of man on earth.

[OldShatterhand]

The Bible said that after Christs dead and resurection that they wouldn't be any High Prists, and that St. John was the last prophet. But this seems unfair to me. Otherwise so many people call themself a prophet, but, what is the proof of a prophet? In the OT it stand, that his prophecy must be fullfilled. So. if somebody make a prophecy which are not true, he/she is a wrong Prophet.

Am I correct?

And what is about the LDS Prophet Joeseph Smith? Is HE a true Prophet? Got his prophecies been fullfilled?

Let's see:

Temple in Independence

On September 22 and 23, 1832, Joseph Smith prophesied of an LDS temple to be built in the city of Independence, Missouri. This is the wording of the prophecy:

�(1)A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high. (2)Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. (3)Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. (4)Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. (5)For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord...�(D&C: Section 84:1-5)

Response

The prophecy specifies that not just a temple, but a whole city, the city of "New Jerusalem", was to be built. The passage is quite specific as to the location of the new temple (verse 3) and the timeframe for its completion (verses 4 & 5) . This prophecy was made in 1832 and it is quite clearly an unfulfilled, and therefore false, prophecy. There is no LDS temple on the site mentioned, and certainly no-one alive today who was alive in 1832, yet the prophecy states �For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord..�

While there is an RLDS temple in Independence, Missouri, this is on the wrong site, and was not built in that generation. As an aside, the RLDS church is a breakaway sect of the LDS church. Mormon missionaries are unlikely to reveal that the Mormon religion suffers the same problem as Protestantism, that is, a proliferation of sets. The main Mormon religion, the LDS Church, is the one headquartered at Salt Lake City, Utah, but there are numerous smaller sects, including the RLDS church, mentioned above.

Note also the wording of the prophecy: "A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith" , "the word of the Lord concerning his church", "Verily this is the word of the Lord.." This wording ought to be noted because often Mormons of today try to sidestep the false prophecies of Joseph Smith by referring to a quote Joseph Smith once made : "...I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." (History of the Church, volume 5, page 265.) However, it should be quite clear that the wording of the above prophecy shows that Joseph Smith was indeed "acting as such". And his prophecy failed. There is no way out of this for Mormon apologists.

(source: False Prophecies of Joseph Smith | Facebook)

'I prophesy by virtue of the holy priesthood vested in me, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government, and God shall damn them, and there shall be nothing left of them, not even a grease spot' (Joseph Smith, Millennial Star, Volume 22, page 455.)

When this prediction was recorded in their official history, the LDS omitted the words 'not even a grease spot' (see History of the Church, Volume 6, page 116). The government never granted the Mormons their petition, and yet the Congress remained in power (Deseret News, Volume 1, page 59).

Doctrine and Covenants 114:1: 'thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant, David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition [sic] of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world'.

David Patten was killed before he could serve this mission. The biblical God knows the end from the beginning, and if this had really been a prophecy from Him, Smith would have prophesied that Pattern was about to die instead of that he was going on a mission.

As usual the LDS offered a selection of excuses (so that we can take our pick), ignoring the fact that the Bible teaches that no amount of excuses can justify a false prophecy. One of their excuses is that the Lord actually called David on mission to the Spirit World. Another excuse is that he wasn't worthy of a mission, so the Lord killed him.

But the revelation was that his mission was to the whole world, not just to the spirit world. And the second excuse it makes it seem as though the LDS God is not properly equipped for his task of being a God. It insinuates that he has such a lack of foresight that it would have been a miracle in itself if any of Smith's prophecies had ever come true. How is it that the biblical God had no such problems?

Doctrine and Covenants 137: Entire paragraphs, comprising 216 words, were removed by the LDS authorities solely because they contained failed prophecies. However, the original records should be in the LDS archives. If you can get hold of a copy of the original Book of Commandments you will see these false prophecies right there in print. Photocopies of some of the changes are in a book in my possession entitled "The Changing World of Mormonism" 1981 printing, by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, c/f pages 38 to 66. (You can read their book online by clicking on the link provided at the end of this article.)

Besides the alterations to their prophet's failed prophecies mentioned in item 3 above, there are many other chapters of prophecies and or revelation that have silently disappeared from Doctrine and Covenants. It is the practice of the LDS church to sanitize both their history and their scriptures whenever they show the church up in a bad light, and if necessary to lie "for the sake of the church." They even have a name for this. They call it "lying for the Lord."

The fact that the LDS leadership regularly sanitizes their history tells us not only that they have done their utmost to cover up the fact that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, but that they have deliberately enabled his deceptions to be perpetuated "for the sake of the church." The truth of the matter is that if they admitted that Joseph Smith was a false prophet all their LDS doctrines would be suspect, because they all had their origins in his supposed revelations.

Sources of all of these three quotes are: Joseph Smith, the Latter-day False Prophet

So, what do you think? Was he a true ore false prophet?

[Lilac]

Curtis, you and I are on the same page.

I'm a Baptist (who was attending a Lutheran church)(long story)

I had an incident at the ward (I posted a thread about it) and have kinda taken a break from too much theological thought. I just decided to pop back on here and update since people were so nice to answer all of my questions.

We seem to have the same questions.

Blessings,