The role of the prophet?

[dscherck]

Hello! I'm still new here and I just realized that I don't know too much about Mormon theology and church structure. I was reading about it and saw that the leader of the church is called the president/prophet? Would that be akin to the role of the Pope in Catholicism? IE, is he the speaker for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to the secular world?

Or is there a different understanding of the role that someone could explain to me?

Thanks!

[pam]

Very good question.

Our Prophet who is currently Thomas S. Monson holds a dual role. He is President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and we also consider him to be a Prophet to the world. We believe him to be an inspired man who was called by God to speak for Him.

[dscherck]

Now in Catholicism, we consider the Pope to be infallible when he speaks on matters of faith and morals. It's not that he can't speak falsehood, but that the Holy Spirit protects him and through him, the Church as a whole from promulgating errors in doctrine. A good primer is located here: Papal Infallibility

I guess my question now is, is the Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints considered infallible in the same manner the bishop of Rome (aka, the Pope) is?

[Guest mormonmusic]

We don't claim he's infallible. In fact, early prophets, like Joseph Smith were rebuked in the scriptures by God, as were old testament prophets for mistakes they made. However, we do believe the prophet won't lead the membership of the Church astray.

Ultimately, we ask people to pray about what they say and learn for themself if it's true.

[pam]

I don't believe any man is infallible. That would include President Monson and the Pope. They are men first. Subject to the same temptations etc. as any other man.

[HiJolly]

I think the word 'infallible' is really interesting, in terms of its usage in religious contexts. The Evangelicals talk about the authority of the Bible and how the Bible as scripture is 'infallible' -- but when you look at the official explication of what that ultimately means, their idea is extremely similar to how we LDS (Mormons) look at it.

Same with the infallibility of the Pope, I think. Our scripture states that whenever the Prophet speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost, that is "scripture" -- something akin to what Catholics & Protestants call "infallible".

The real sticking point is how we determine that they actually did speak by the "power of the HG" -- In the Mormon Church, that determination is officially given individually to each member of the Church. When we have new scripture to add to the 'canon' (we don't really call it that) it is voted on by the general membership of the Church.

I remember doing that back in the 70's, which is the most recent time that was done, IIRC.

HiJolly

[NeuroTypical]

On-topic joke:

In the Catholic church, the pope is infallible- but no one believes it. In the Mormon church, the prophet is fallible- but no one believes it.

Basically, God tells us that the Prophet will never lead the church astray. But no, they don't give up their basic humanity, fallibility, error-proneness, or fallen nature we all share, just because God picks them to be His mouthpiece. We believe the heavens are not closed - and direct, personal revalation on the truth of various things is within our grasp - one of the consequences of having the gift of the Holy Ghost.

A few relevant quotes from past church leaders:

“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (DBY pg 135; also JD, Vol 9, pg. 150)

"If we do anything let us do it understandingly. If we hear any principle taught from the stand that we do not understand let us seek to comprehend it by the Spirit of God. If it be not of God we have the privilege of knowing it. We are not required to receive for doctrine everything that we hear. We may say--`I do not know whether this is true or not, I will not fight it, neither will I endorse it, but I will seek knowledge from God, for that is my privilege, and I will never rest satisfied until I have obtained the light I require.' If you hear a doctrine that does not agree with your feelings, or that you do not believe, take this course; do not reject nor endorse hastily, without knowing or understanding. By taking this course you will develop the principle that God designs we should possess, and we will thus become a wise and understanding people, for we will be based on the Rock of Revelation." (George Q. Cannon, JD 12:46 April 21st, 1867)

Some may say, "Brethren, you who lead the Church, we have all confidence in you, we are not in the least afraid but what everything will go right under your superintendence; all the business matters will be transacted right; and if brother Brigham is satisfied with it, I am." I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, "If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are," this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.

Every man and woman in this kingdom ought to be satisfied with what we do, but they never should be satisfied without asking the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, whether what we do is right. When you are inspired by the Holy Ghost you can understandingly say, that you are satisfied; and that is the only power that should cause you to exclaim that you are satisfied, for without that you do not know whether you should be satisfied or not. You may say that you are satisfied and believe that all is right, and your confidence may be almost unbounded in the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ, but if you asked God, in the name of Jesus, and received knowledge for yourself, through the Holy Spirit, would it not strengthen your faith? It would. A little faith will perform little works; that is good logic. Jesus says, "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." (JD, 3: 45)

We can know when a man speaks as a prophet. Now, when does a person speak as a prophet? Do you recall that oft-repeated revelation in which the Lord said: And, behold, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood [and he is talking of General Authorities], whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—They shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D&C 68:2-4.) (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, 1996, 540)

When is a prophet a prophet? Whenever he speaks under the inspiration and influence of the Holy Ghost. Men frequently speak and express their own opinions. The Lord has not deprived men of individual opinions. Good men, men of faith, have divergent views on many things. There is no particular harm in this if these views are not in relation to the fundamentals. Some men are Democrats, some Republicans. Some believe in a particular political philosophy and some are bitterly opposed to it, and yet they are faithful men with a testimony of the gospel. When prophets write and speak on the principles of the gospel, they should have the guidance of the Spirit. If they do, then all that they say will be in harmony with the revealed word. If they are in harmony then we know that they have not spoken presumptuously.fn Should a man speak or write, and what he says is in conflict with the standards which are accepted, with the revelations the Lord has given, then we may reject what he has said, no matter who he is. Paul declared that he, at times, gave his own opinion in his writing. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:187)

Edited January 8, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Wingnut]

On-topic joke:

In the Catholic church, the pope is infallible- but no one believes it. In the Mormon church, the prophet is fallible- but no one believes it.

Basically, God tells us that the Prophet will never lead the church astray. But no, they don't give up their basic humanity, fallibility, error-proneness, or fallen nature we all share, just because God picks them to be His mouthpiece. We believe the heavens are not closed - and direct, personal revalation on the truth of various things is within our grasp - one of the consequences of having the gift of the Holy Ghost.

A few relevant quotes from past church leaders:

Since this is a forum for learning about the LDS church, and the OP is clearly not a member, I'll clarify a couple of those sources.

DBY = Discourses of Brigham Young

JD = Journal of Discourses

[dscherck]

Basically, God tells us that the Prophet will never lead the church astray. But no, they don't give up their basic humanity, fallibility, error-proneness, or fallen nature we all share, just because God picks them to be His mouthpiece. We believe the heavens are not closed - and direct, personal revalation on the truth of various things is within our grasp - one of the consequences of having the gift of the Holy Ghost.

See, that does sound a lot like how Catholic theology tackles the issue of infallibility in regards to the Pope. The pope is protected from promulgating errors in doctrine. We've had our share of bad popes in the past, but they've never out right said something while speaking in their official capacity that contradicts what the Church has always taught. They're in a sense, protected by the Holy Spirit in a way so that they can't lead the Church astray. :)

And we Catholics do also believe in direct personal revelation, but we're also not required to believe someone else's personal revelation. In instances where there have been reported visitations/miraculous visions/revelations, the Church is very careful to check them out thoroughly before declaring them "worthy of belief" or not.

[Lisa-marie]

I (as a Baptist) find that any visitations/ visions/ revelations are on an individual basis and we can discuss them amongst ourselves but unless it is directly related to a specific teaching in the new testament it is not officially addressed.

[Jason_J]

I don't believe any man is infallible. That would include President Monson and the Pope. They are men first. Subject to the same temptations etc. as any other man.

True, however the key in understanding what Papal Infallibility means is that it's talking about in matters of faith and morals, i.e. in formally defining doctrine. So, I think his question isn't about whether LDS believe that the President of the LDS Church is infallible in everything he says or does (since Catholics don't believe that about the Pope), but whether the President is infallible when he formally defines doctrines. To me, this sounds just like saying "the prophet will never lead us astray", since to me, this means that the President will never formally define false doctrines, which is what Papal Infallibility is saying about the Pope.

[dscherck]

True, however the key in understanding what Papal Infallibility means is that it's talking about in matters of faith and morals, i.e. in formally defining doctrine. So, I think his question isn't about whether LDS believe that the President of the LDS Church is infallible in everything he says or does (since Catholics don't believe that about the Pope), but whether the President is infallible when he formally defines doctrines. To me, this sounds just like saying "the prophet will never lead us astray", since to me, this means that the President will never formally define false doctrines, which is what Papal Infallibility is saying about the Pope.

Exactly! There are some pretty tight rules on infallibility. But the idea of "the prophet will never lead us astray" is very close to how we see things. Substitute the pope instead of the prophet in that sentence and you'll get close to how we Catholics see things.