About the Prophet

Bini · May 17, 2012

When the Prophet is not addressing the Latter-Day Saints, such as conference, is everything he says still considered doctrine? Let's pretend I'm having lunch with the Prophet. I ask him if drinking Cola violates the Word of Wisdom. He says that he does not drink alcohol, coffee or tea and also refrains from Cola products. Would this be his personal opinion or would it constitute as doctrine?

Secondly, is the Prophet the most righteous man on earth? If this is true, that makes him the prime example of obedience and humility. In which case, I should be striving to live by his example and adopt ALL that he preaches (says) and lives by (Do's & Don'ts)?

May 17, 2012

When the Prophet is not addressing the Latter-Day Saints, such as conference, is everything he says still considered doctrine? Let's pretend I'm having lunch with the Prophet. I ask him if drinking Cola violates the Word of Wisdom. He says that he does not drink alcohol, coffee or tea and also refrains from Cola products. Would this be his personal opinion or would it constitute as doctrine?

No. The Prophet is different from the Pope in the sense that the Prophet is a prophet when speaking as an agent of God and is a man when doing regular human stuff. The Pope is the Pope - 24 hours a day, everyday of the week, so everything he says is said under the authority of that title even when asking to please pass the butter.

So, when you're just having lunch with him as a friend and he says he does not drink alcohol it would be his personal opinion - but, as it coincides with a commandment, then it's commandment as well. Now, if you're at lunch and he says something that is not present in doctrine, it does not make it doctrine just because he said it.

Secondly, is the Prophet the most righteous man on earth? If this is true, that makes him the prime example of obedience and humility. In which case, I should be striving to live by his example and adopt ALL that he preaches (says) and lives by (Do's & Don'ts)?

Most righteous? Probably. Whether this is true or not, he is still a prime example of obedience and humility and as such is a good role model. But, I try to strive to live by Jesus Christ's example and adopt all that Jesus teaches. That's the bar I set.

Connie · May 17, 2012

Cultivate a relationship with the Spirit. It will lead you into all truth. Pray to know if you should follow what the prophet says regardless of the circumstance or environment under which he says it.

We are all violators of the law. I do know that the prophet has many more virtues than I have and, therefore, I strive to follow the example of his virtues and follow what he says, particularly when the Spirit whispers to me that he is speaking for God. But my ultimate example is the Savior, as I know it is for the prophet as well.

Bini · May 17, 2012

Thank you, Anatess. That makes sense.

pam · May 17, 2012

If you asked President Monson if he is the most righteous he would probably chuckle. Then he would probably say..."Let me tell you about a letter that I received...

It would then be about someone that he found to be remarkable and would take the conversation away from him.

At least that's how I picture it. :)

beefche · May 17, 2012

I had the opportunity to serve President Hinckley breakfast when he was dedicating a temple. It was in another country and he was there for about 4 days for the dedication.

As I brought in his breakfast, he and his wife kindly greeted us (there were about 4 of us). He was very grandfatherly and nice. His breakfast that morning was rice crispies with milk and banana. I thought him to be such a pleasant, old man.

The next day, I had the opportunity to be in the Celestial Room when he dedicated the temple. I did not see a nice, pleasant, old man. I saw a Prophet of God. He stood tall and carried an air of authority. He looked bigger. That man at that time was more than a grandfather--he was the spokesman for God.

I share that to help illustrate the difference. Our prophets are men--men who like cereal for breakfast, who have favorite sports teams, who have dislikes of certain foods, etc. When they are being men, they are....men.

But when they are acting in their role and office, they are more than men. Doctrine given by the prophet is for the whole world. He isn't going to announce it to one individual nor is he going to announce it in a secretive way. Doctrine will be given before the whole church (and world, for that matter). He may counsel a friend or loved one and I would take his counsel very seriously. But, that counsel is not doctrine for the whole church.

Finally, although we have individuals that we admire and emulate, we need to be careful of putting our faith in the "arm of flesh." Men can and do fail. Even prophets. We are assured that the church will not be led astray. However, the Lord didn't say that the prophet can't be astray. I would imagine a prophet who has traveled "astray" will likely be removed, but there is no guarantee that the man who is prophet can't fall away. So, while it is good to admire the Prophet, I don't think I would consider him the "most righteous." I consider him a righteous man who is worthy to be an example for me. I also know other righteous men, who are not prophets, who are worthy to be an example for me.

HiJolly · May 17, 2012

When the Prophet is not addressing the Latter-Day Saints, such as conference, is everything he says still considered doctrine? Let's pretend I'm having lunch with the Prophet. I ask him if drinking Cola violates the Word of Wisdom. He says that he does not drink alcohol, coffee or tea and also refrains from Cola products. Would this be his personal opinion or would it constitute as doctrine?

No. Even at the pulpit, the prophet does not speak doctrine unless the Holy Ghost witnesses to you (an individual) that he is speaking doctrine.

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. (Christofferson, April General Conference)

The Doctrine of Christ - general-conference

Secondly, is the Prophet the most righteous man on earth? If this is true, that makes him the prime example of obedience and humility. In which case, I should be striving to live by his example and adopt ALL that he preaches (says) and lives by (Do's & Don'ts)?

No. Due to the weakness of the Saint's faith, the church calls men and women as leaders, whom the membership can look up to and respect. These men are only occasionally the most righteous men in the Church. Pragatism wins.

Sometimes we get both qualities in the same leader. Bonus!!

HiJolly

Bini · May 17, 2012

Thanks to the other responses, especially, Beefche! I found your post very enlightening on the subject.

Desertknight · May 17, 2012

No. The Prophet is different from the Pope in the sense that the Prophet is a prophet when speaking as an agent of God and is a man when doing regular human stuff. The Pope is the Pope - 24 hours a day, everyday of the week, so everything he says is said under the authority of that title even when asking to please pass the butter.

Just a point of correction; that is false. The Pope is only speaking with his authority as chief bishop of the Church, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when he is speaking on a matter of faith and morals, in defining doctrine. The pope may have certain personal opinions on religious issues, that no Catholic is obliged to believe in. Nor are any other pronouncements he makes outside of faith and morals, anything other than his own opinion.

As a secondary note, Popes are not prophets at all. They are always, nothing but men and sinners to boot. They function only as the chief bishop of the Church as St. Peter did, head of all the bishops who share Christ's authority.

Dravin · May 17, 2012

As a secondary note, Popes are not prophets at all. They are always, nothing but men and sinners to boot. They function only as the chief bishop of the Church as St. Peter did, head of all the bishops who share Christ's authority.

I expect what happened here was a cross over of terminology in trying to explain the Pope in LDS terms such as it were. Of all the non-LDS Church leaders the Pope is most analogous to LDS Presidents/Prophets . But as you note such analogies don't always work very deeply and as you rightly point out, the idea of Papal infallibility and authority is often misunderstood by non-Catholics. Not that I have the greatest grasp on Papal infallibilty/authority, just enough to know that the common perception that the Pope is 'on' 100% of the time is incorrect.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Dravin

Vort · May 18, 2012

No. Even at the pulpit, the prophet does not speak doctrine unless the Holy Ghost witnesses to you (an individual) that he is speaking doctrine.

This is not correct. Whether the prophet is teaching revealed doctrine is not determined by the spiritual state or sensitivity of an individual.

Arnolt · May 18, 2012

As far as I know there is no Christian denomination or church except LDS (HLT in Germany) that accepts the possibility of revelation in our days. So whatever a non-LDS Church leader might address with his authority to the members of his church or denomination, it could not be more than doctrine and never any kind of revealed truth. I once learned from the Liahona, where Elder Holland from the highest quorum of your church wrote s.th. about revelations, that other churches deny the possibility of revelations in our time, and they simply offer stones to their members instead of bread. And what about doctrine? Many of the (latest) Prophets´ words have become doctrine, but the words came from the Allmighty, and not from themselves. In my opinion it should not be the question if all the words and addresses of one man were doctrine or worth to become doctrine, but more to ask, if he was under the Allmighty´s influence at the moment of speaking or revealing. This is why it sometimes might be difficult to decide between revelation on the one hand and personal, own words, and opinions of one man on the other hand.

HiJolly · May 18, 2012

This is not correct. Whether the prophet is teaching revealed doctrine is not determined by the spiritual state or sensitivity of an individual.

Yes, it is correct. If the Church wants the teachings made official doctrine to the body of the Church, then there must be a vote of the general membership concerning it.

So says the scriptures.

HiJolly

May 18, 2012

Just a point of correction; that is false. The Pope is only speaking with his authority as chief bishop of the Church, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when he is speaking on a matter of faith and morals, in defining doctrine. The pope may have certain personal opinions on religious issues, that no Catholic is obliged to believe in. Nor are any other pronouncements he makes outside of faith and morals, anything other than his own opinion.
As a secondary note, Popes are not prophets at all. They are always, nothing but men and sinners to boot. They function only as the chief bishop of the Church as St. Peter did, head of all the bishops who share Christ's authority.

I expect what happened here was a cross over of terminology in trying to explain the Pope in LDS terms such as it were. Of all the non-LDS Church leaders the Pope is most analogous to LDS Presidents/Prophets . But as you note such analogies don't always work very deeply and as you rightly point out, the idea of Papal infallibility and authority is often misunderstood by non-Catholics. Not that I have the greatest grasp on Papal infallibilty/authority, just enough to know that the common perception that the Pope is 'on' 100% of the time is incorrect.

DesertKnight, I see you're Catholic. I'm going to just hijack this thread just a bit to explain my comments about the Pope.

The Pope is pope 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He doesn't "shed" his papal authority at any time for any reason. Therefore, he takes his office with him when he goes to have lunch with you.

This is different from the Prophet in a sense that the Prophet... say... can speak at a funeral not as the Prophet of God but as a friend of the deceased. A Pope can't do that. He speaks as the Pope AND the friend of the deceased in this case. Or, beefche actually held a really good example of this Prophet/just another old guy distinction a few posts back. You can't really say that about the Pope. He holds the authority of the Pope even at breakfast.

Papal infallibility is a different matter and that is what DesertKnight and Dravin are pointing at. Just because he speaks with Papal Authority doesn't mean that what he said is Infallible. Infallibility of the Pope (also extends to the bishops) may only be applicable when he is speaking ex cathedra, like DesertKnight stated (see below for more comments on ex cathedra). Because a Pope is not exempt from sin. One of my favorite papal quotes:

"I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible." - Pope John XXIII.

Okay, ex cathedra. I acknowledge that I may rub a stitch on the Catholics in this here forum, but as this is an LDS forum, I feel it's okay to state what I think about ex cathedra. Ex cathedra infallibility only applies if the statement is made regarding matters of faith or morals - nothing else. The Catholic Church has evolved... it used to be Papal Infallibility was a much bigger thing than it is now. So, in the late 1800's (first ecumenical council) they fleshed out ex cathedra - to give an out for those erroneous teachings of the old days. But, they never did clarify which of the old teachings are ex cathedra or not that you can write a list of papal teachings on matters of faith or morals and you'll have theologians disagreeing on its infallibility. After the council, they identified specific verbiage to signify that the Pope is speaking ex cathedra so at least the Church can identify which is ex cathedra and which is not. But, there are sooo very few instances in which the Pope invokes ex cathedra in the years following that Papal/Ecumenical Infallibility almost becomes meaningless. So, what just happened here - basically, the correctness of a lot of Catholic teachings/interpretations can be declared fallible and is subject to change. So, this really doesn't differ from LDS now. God's Word doesn't change. It's how we understand it is what changes. Line upon line, precept upon precept, and that includes the Prophets. LDS and Catholic hold the same standard there.

But, where LDS takes up that slack is that we do not, at any time, profess to be a complete canon. We acknowledge the hand of modern revelation as well as the power of personal revelation so that we don't have to go through long gyrations when trying to explain why something a Prophet declared a few decades ago just got changed by a Prophet today. Because we believe that there are things that God has not yet revealed to us and will soon reveal to us when we are ready to receive it.

/end of hijack.

Vort · May 19, 2012

Yes, it is correct. If the Church wants the teachings made official doctrine to the body of the Church, then there must be a vote of the general membership concerning it.
So says the scriptures.

That is far different from your original claim:

Even at the pulpit, the prophet does not speak doctrine unless the Holy Ghost witnesses to you (an individual) that he is speaking doctrine.

Your statement is false. The prophet might read doctrine directly out of the scriptures, and yet for whatever reason, you fail to get a witness from the Holy Ghost. Does that mean it's not doctrine? According to your statement, it does. But your statement is wrong. It's still doctrine.

Your response is non sequitur in any case. If it requires a vote of the Church body to accept something as revelation (which, of course, it does not) or as "official doctrine" (a phrase which never occurs in any context in scripture), then a mere witness of the Holy Ghost to an individual does not fulfill that requirement.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Vort

HiJolly · May 19, 2012

That is far different from your original claim:
Even at the pulpit, the prophet does not speak doctrine unless the Holy Ghost witnesses to you (an individual) that he is speaking doctrine.
Your statement is false. The prophet might read doctrine directly out of the scriptures, and yet for whatever reason, you fail to get a witness from the Holy Ghost. Does that mean it's not doctrine? According to your statement, it does. But your statement is wrong. It's still doctrine.
Your response is non sequitur in any case. If it requires a vote of the Church body to accept something as revelation (which, of course, it does not) or as "official doctrine" (a phrase which never occurs in any context in scripture), then a mere witness of the Holy Ghost to an individual does not fulfill that requirement.

Hmm... Ok, let me try again. Let's start with the scriptures:

D&C 68:4 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.

Now many Saints assume that when a General Authority speaks, the conditions of 68:4 are met, and what we are hearing is scripture. But this is not necessarily the case. Joseph Smith taught that sometimes it is the case, and sometimes it is not the case. And Elder Christofferson in the Sunday AM session of General Conference this past April, did a great job of explaining the concept.

So how do we tell? Well -- we cannot, unless we have the Holy Ghost ourselves, personally, to witness to us whether it is indeed the "will" "mind" "word" and "voice" of the Lord. If we do not receive this witness, then we can regard it as good information, but NOT as scripture. The only exception would be if the Brethren feel it is scripture to such a point that they put it up to a vote before the entire body of the Church. This is how Sections 137 & 138 were added to the Scriptures, and I was there and voted in favor of it myself.

Until that vote, it was not 'scripture' to the Church. It was only 'scripture' to those who up to that point had received a personal witness of it from the Holy Ghost.

HiJolly

Desertknight · May 19, 2012

This is different from the Prophet in a sense that the Prophet... say... can speak at a funeral not as the Prophet of God but as a friend of the deceased. A Pope can't do that. He speaks as the Pope AND the friend of the deceased in this case. Or, beefche actually held a really good example of this Prophet/just another old guy distinction a few posts back. You can't really say that about the Pope. He holds the authority of the Pope even at breakfast.

True, he is always the Pope, even when at private functions, but he can certainly speak at a friend's funeral, just as a friend. He is free to attend a funeral, for example, and say what he wishes, just as a friend, and not act as an officiating priest.

The Catholic Church has evolved... it used to be Papal Infallibility was a much bigger thing than it is now. So, in the late 1800's (first ecumenical council) they fleshed out ex cathedra - to give an out for those erroneous teachings of the old days. But, they never did clarify which of the old teachings are ex cathedra or not that you can write a list of papal teachings on matters of faith or morals and you'll have theologians disagreeing on its infallibility. After the council, they identified specific verbiage to signify that the Pope is speaking ex cathedra so at least the Church can identify which is ex cathedra and which is not. But, there are sooo very few instances in which the Pope invokes ex cathedra in the years following that Papal/Ecumenical Infallibility almost becomes meaningless.

I hope I will not cause offense but much of what you say here is not really correct. Papal infallibility is as "big" now as it has always been as the infallibility of the Church, (and therefore Her chief bishop) is one of the bedrock doctrines of the Catholic faith. Literally, as it derives from Matt. 16:18. It is inseparable from the Petrine Primacy of the Church. (The infallible and authoritative nature of the bishop of Rome.) It's first noteworthy exercise after St. Peter was when Clement the 1st, reversed a decision by the church in Corinth in A.D. 96, but there are numerous examples throughout the ages, of the saints who attest to it...

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" St. Irenaeus A.D. 189.

For us Catholics, the Church, and therefore Her chief bishop who holds the Chair of Peter, was, is and always will be, the "pillar of truth" that Sacred Scripture says they are. (1 Tim. 3:15).

So, what just happened here - basically, the correctness of a lot of Catholic teachings/interpretations can be declared fallible and is subject to change. So, this really doesn't differ from LDS now. God's Word doesn't change. It's how we understand it is what changes. Line upon line, precept upon precept, and that includes the Prophets. LDS and Catholic hold the same standard there.

Well, there are no doctrines that are declared "fallible" and no doctrine of the Church is ever subject to change as such, but through the development of doctrine, they will be more fully fleshed-out and explained in a more relevant way to the people of a particular age.

But, where LDS takes up that slack is that we do not, at any time, profess to be a complete canon. We acknowledge the hand of modern revelation as well as the power of personal revelation so that we don't have to go through long gyrations when trying to explain why something a Prophet declared a few decades ago just got changed by a Prophet today. Because we believe that there are things that God has not yet revealed to us and will soon reveal to us when we are ready to receive it.

Right, but again, I think you have an erroneous, (And I'm not picking on you as it is one that is frequently held by non-Catholics), idea as to what infallibility is. Infallibility, either the pope's or the bishops and Church as a whole, is not an ability to change doctrine without error or to declare a previous doctrine 'fallible' and a new one 'infallible'. No such procedure or charism exists with either Pope or the Church. I've never heard of such a thing. Infallibility is the promise that what is taught and adhered to, in matters of faith and morals, will be without error, will never be divergent from the objective truth that is the faith of the ages, as the Church and what She teaches, is protected by the Holy Spirit from ever doing so. Edited May 19, 2012 by Desertknight

bytor2112 · May 23, 2012

If I were having lunch with President Monson and I ordered a Coke to drink and He were to say, "you know Brother Bytor, you really should refrain from drinking coke...I would stop drinking coke. Just saying...

john doe · May 23, 2012

If I were having lunch with President Monson and I ordered a Coke to drink and He were to say, "you know Brother Bytor, you really should refrain from drinking coke...I would stop drinking coke. Just saying...

But would you do it if your personal trainer told you you should quit?

pam · May 23, 2012

If I were having lunch with President Monson and I ordered a Coke to drink and He were to say, "you know Brother Bytor, you really should refrain from drinking coke...I would stop drinking coke. Just saying...

Because it was President Monson, I probably wouldn't even order a coke to begin with. Just saying.....

Desertknight · May 23, 2012

If I were having lunch with President Monson and I ordered a Coke to drink and He were to say, "you know Brother Bytor, you really should refrain from drinking coke...I would stop drinking coke. Just saying...

If I were having lunch with the Pope and ordered a coke, he would say, "You're not having beer?" Just sayin...

bytor2112 · May 23, 2012

But would you do it if your personal trainer told you you should quit?

Of course...........................................not.

Edited May 23, 2012 by bytor2112

Dravin · May 23, 2012

You know, my first thought would be the Pope is a wine drinker because of Italy but then it occurred to me that Pope Benedict XVI was born in Germany, and that's beer territory.

Desertknight · May 23, 2012

You know, my first thought would be the Pope is a wine drinker because of Italy but then it occurred to me that Pope Benedict XVI was born in Germany, and that's beer territory.

That would be correct. :)

Dravin · May 23, 2012

I love that bumper sticker! It actually made me laugh.

Sign In

About the Prophet

Recommended Posts

Bini

Guest

Connie

Bini

pam

beefche

HiJolly

Bini

Desertknight

Dravin

Vort

Arnolt

HiJolly

Guest

Vort

HiJolly

Desertknight

bytor2112

john doe

pam

Desertknight

bytor2112

Dravin

Desertknight

Dravin

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity