When Is a Prophet Speaking as A Prophet?

[Jason_J]

Hey everyone. So I've been meditating lately on the concept of having living prophets and apostles, and I love reading the New Testament and knowing that our Church has prophets in these days just like during NT times.

I know that it is taught that not everything a prophet says is inspired. It is also said that the prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as one. My question then becomes, how do we know when a prophet is acting as a prophet? Does the Church have any guidelines on that? Are there any GC talks I could read about that matter?

[selek]

Phrases such as "Thus saith the Lord" and "On behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve" tend to be pretty definitive.

What is said at Conference comes a close second- though the versions recorded in the Ensign and General Conference reports are better (as they have been reviewed and correlated).

Brigham Young was a feiry- often extemporaneous- orator, and was reputed to have said that, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture."

Critics of the Church love to abuse that statement as evidence of President Young's arrogance and hubris, but they all too often omit the second part, which read: " Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve."

Young was neither so boastful or foolish as to proclaim that his "word was law" as it fell from his, but was instead affirming that within his role as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, his words were binding upon the faithful who heard them.

Note, too, the qualifying statement, "let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon"- meaning to double check it against and revise it as necessary to match extant doctrine, the Gospel, and Church law.

This is particularly revealing because it is echoed in the Church's official answer that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve determine doctrine between them- as a thoughtful, considered process.

Mormonism and doctrine/Statements by past prophets - FAIRMormon

Because doctrine- and Church policy- are determined by the Brethren as a whole, a good rule of thumb is to determine whether or not what the individual is saying is consistent with the Scriptures, positions, and official teachings of the Church.

Another good rule of thumb is whether the individual is speaking "on the record"- as an official representative of the Church and as an apostle (or at least disciple) of Christ.

A good third and fourth rules of thumb are, "Do this man's words have anything to do with advancing his earthly commission?" and "Are this man's opinions valid within the scope of his calling?"

I trust President Monson to direct the affairs of the Church- to assign mission calls, to set general policies (consistent with the Gospel) and to direct the deployment of Church resources (human and otherwise).

Those functions are within the scope of his calling, commission, and post as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.

Were he to announce that all members of the Church were to suddenly buy only Pontiac automobiles, I would take that advice with a much larger grain of salt- because it has nothing to do with his calling or commission as an apostle and witness of Christ.

It should be noted that these are, of course, "rules of thumb".

Ultimately, however, there is but one hard-and-fast rule to which we are bound: whether or not the Spirit of God ratifies the speaker's words.

We as Saints- and more specifically as disciples of Christ- are required to "check our compasses" against that of the Church and the Holy Spirit.

If we are confident and honest in that assessment, we may be confident and honest in judging whether the words and deeds of others are in keeping with the revealed Gospel.

For additional reading, I advise you to check out the Church's official answer to this question, as recorded here.

Edited March 6, 2013 by selek

[SanctitasDeo]

Phrases such as "Thus saith the Lord" and "On behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve" tend to be pretty definitive.

What is said at Conference comes a close second- though the versions recorded in the Ensign and General Conference reports are better (as they have been reviewed and correlated).

Brigham Young was a feiry- often extemporaneous- orator, and was reputed to have said that, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture."

Critics of the Church love to abuse that statement as evidence of President Young's arrogance and hubris, but they all too often omit the second part, which read: " Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve."

Young was neither so boastful or foolish as to proclaim that his "word was law" as it fell from his, but was instead affirming that within his role as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, his words were binding upon the faithful who heard them.

Note, too, the qualifying statement, "let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon"- meaning to double check it against and revise it as necessary to match extant doctrine, the Gospel, and Church law.

This is particularly revealing because it is echoed in the Church's official answer that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve determine doctrine between them- as a thoughtful, considered process.

Mormonism and doctrine/Statements by past prophets - FAIRMormon

Because doctrine- and Church policy- are determined by the Brethren as a whole, a good rule of thumb is to determine whether or not what the individual is saying is consistent with the Scriptures, positions, and official teachings of the Church.

Another good rule of thumb is whether the individual is speaking "on the record"- as an official representative of the Church and as an apostle (or at least disciple) of Christ.

A good third and fourth rules of thumb are, "Do this man's words have anything to do with advancing his earthly commission?" and "Are this man's opinions valid within the scope of his calling?"

I trust President Monson to direct the affairs of the Church- to assign mission calls, to set general policies (consistent with the Gospel) and to direct the deployment of Church resources (human and otherwise).

Those functions are within the scope of his calling, commission, and post as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.

Were he to announce that all members of the Church were to suddenly buy only Pontiac automobiles, I would take that advice with a much larger grain of salt- because it has nothing to do with his calling or commission as an apostle and witness of Christ.

It should be noted that these are, of course, "rules of thumb".

Ultimately, however, there is but one hard-and-fast rule to which we are bound: whether or not the Spirit of God ratifies the speaker's words.

We as Saints- and more specifically as disciples of Christ- are required to "check our compasses" against that of the Church and the Holy Spirit.

If we are confident and honest in that assessment, we may be confident and honest in judging whether the words and deeds of others are in keeping with the revealed Gospel.

Selek has some good thoughts here. Is there any specific issue you are thinking about, or just the principle in general?

[Traveler]

Hey everyone. So I've been meditating lately on the concept of having living prophets and apostles, and I love reading the New Testament and knowing that our Church has prophets in these days just like during NT times.

I know that it is taught that not everything a prophet says is inspired. It is also said that the prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as one. My question then becomes, how do we know when a prophet is acting as a prophet? Does the Church have any guidelines on that? Are there any GC talks I could read about that matter?

The simple answer is when the Holy Ghost manifests the truth to us. If we read in the D&C we will learn that G-d gives no commandment to his church and in his kingdom until or unless it is received by common consent by the members. Thus it is that the greatest necessity to have a prophet at the head of one's church is not G-d speaking through the prophet. The greatest necessity is to have his saints listening by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The Traveler

[Jason_J]

Selek has some good thoughts here. Is there any specific issue you are thinking about, or just the principle in general?

No, no specific issue. Just trying to understand how we can know what is regarded as inspired and/or revealed knowledge/guidance, and what isn't. Selek's answer was good.

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon Jason_J. I hope you've been doing well! :)

My answer is probably the least satisfying from an intellectual standpoint.

1. Learn to recognize the Spirit and then listen to His promptings. You want to do this for obvious reasons, but also because sometimes the doctrine coming from the mouth of prophets may be for you and you only. What I mean here by "doctrine" are any personal promptings from God to you that are as good as doctrine on an individual level.

2. Make the decision to trust in the prophets and in the Church. This is the mechanism that God uses to give general guidance that is binding to the whole church, or whole world, really.

Then I have this from the Mormon Newsroom website (official site):

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

The full article has some other good information. You can read it here.

Regards,

Finrock

P.S.

I didn't notice before I made my post that selek had already provided the link to the Newsroom article.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Finrock
Added Post Script

[james12]

I am coming to understand an important point related to this topic. In short, it is that man cannot put any other man between himself and God. That it is our privilege and duty to have such a relationship with the Lord that we may approach him in prayer and receive an answer through the Holy Ghost. That we must know the truth for ourselves and if we do not, we must work until we can know by personal revelation from God.

Every true follower has gained a testimony through the Spirit. Every serious investigator must pray to know the Book of Mormon is true. It does not matter if I say it is true or a prophet says so. It is personal revelation to that man or woman that convinces and leads a person forward. It seems that sometimes we loose sight of how we found the truth. For various reasons we start depending on man. But we must continue in the Spirit until we know the truth of all things for ourselves and need not depend on another.

Moreover, promises made to others are not promises made to us. We must obtain for ourselves the promises of the Lord. Joseph said, “These promises, when obtained, if ever by us, will not be because Peter, John, and the other Apostles … walked in the fear of God and had power and faith to prevail and obtain them; but it will be because we, ourselves, have faith and approach God in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, even as they did; and when these promises are obtained, they will be promises directly to us, or they will do us no good. (History of the Church Vol 2 p. 19-22) Therefore, it is our privilege and duty to obtain the same blessings as any prophet has in the past and to know as we are known (See also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 12–13)

Edited March 7, 2013 by james12

[tubaloth]

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet - Liahona June 1981 - liahona

[mnn727]

Were he to announce that all members of the Church were to suddenly buy only Pontiac automobiles, I would take that advice with a much larger grain of salt- because it has nothing to do with his calling or commission as an apostle and witness of Christ.

Especially since GM closed the Pontiac division.

[SF_Giants66]

Part of the problem is Brigham Young said specifically he has never spoken any words that cannot be taken as good as scripture. This really turns up a lot of questions because whether or not he was speaking as a prophet all the time, he certainly claimed he was and made a lot of statements that by today's standards would be considered horrible. I know that in the 1800s it was easy for many people to believe as he did, but does that mean god changes as society does?

[Thordersonjg]

Part of the problem is Brigham Young said specifically he has never spoken any words that cannot be taken as good as scripture. This really turns up a lot of questions because whether or not he was speaking as a prophet all the time, he certainly claimed he was and made a lot of statements that by today's standards would be considered horrible. I know that in the 1800s it was easy for many people to believe as he did, but does that mean god changes as society does?

Here you go!

Brigham Young:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so."

(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)

[Thordersonjg]

I share this so that we may address this respectively. I don't believe in WHITEWASHING the early LDS history to look perfect. Things were said. Accountability is required.

Brigham Young:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.

This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants', and they will be, until that curse is removed."

Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.

[SF_Giants66]

This of course brings us back to the original question. When were they not speaking as a prophet even when they claimed they were? And if they claimed they were speaking as a prophet when the words they were saying were not from any divine source, what does that say about their character?

[Thordersonjg]

It says they were either overly confident in everything they said (cocky by our standards) or they were just plain racist and misunderstood how God felt about black people.

Either way this raises a lot of questions that the GA's haven't really addressed.. at least in response to those horrific statements made by many of the earlier authorities.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Thordersonjg

[james12]

Below are two statements, both by Brigham Young. In the first he says members should not settle into such blind security that they place their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders. In the next quote has says that he has never given counsel that is wrong. Which should we do, follow our leaders without question by trusting every word they speak or find out for ourselves? If we have the Holy Ghost and if both statements are not true then I would ask which one is?

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. (Journal of Discourses, 9:151)

I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161)

Now, I think the course of action to be taken is inescapable. We must take the Holy Spirit as our guide. This does not mean we must pray about every word which comes from the brethren. Most of the time I feel a witness of the spirit as they are speaking the words. I do not need to question it for I know it is true. But if there is occasion where we may question then I believe we must take it as our duty to pray to the Lord and get a witness for ourselves as to how we are to proceed. Is this not what J. Ruben Clark explains and what was reiterated two conferences ago by Elder Christopherson?

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” (J. Reuben Clark Jr., “Church Leaders’ Words,” 10)

Now if the president of the church past or present happens to speak words not inspired of the spirit, so what? He is still president of the church and he still holds the prophetic mantel. Brigham Young is a perfect example. He has at times spoken such profound truths that I know what he says is the word of the Lord. The first presidency and the twelve are men of God. I am thankful for them and the testimonies we receive from them. They help lead me to do right.

[estradling75]

Below are two statements, both by Brigham Young. In the first he says members should not settle into such blind security that they place their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders. In the next quote has says that he has never given counsel that is wrong. Which should we do, follow our leaders without question by trusting every word they speak or find out for ourselves? If we have the Holy Ghost and if both statements are not true then I would ask which one is?

I think you are misunderstanding the intent of the first quote... I do not believe it is saying don't trust the leaders and what they say. I believe it is trying to shake the members out of the mindset of... "I'll wait until the leaders give instruction in the matter before I do anything." This ties back into the point you make later about learning to follow the spirit. I believe Brigham Young was addressing a subset of the Saints that fail to learn to listen to the spirit, but think that it is ok because they will follow whatever the prophet says.

Such people will end up falling short, because we need to learn to follow the spirit. (Paradoxically for these people, this is what the Prophets are trying to teach us)

[james12]

I think you are misunderstanding the intent of the first quote... I do not believe it is saying don't trust the leaders and what they say. I believe it is trying to shake the members out of the mindset of... "I'll wait until the leaders give instruction in the matter before I do anything." This ties back into the point you make later about learning to follow the spirit. I believe Brigham Young was addressing a subset of the Saints that fail to learn to listen to the spirit, but think that it is ok because they will follow whatever the prophet says.

Such people will end up falling short, because we need to learn to follow the spirit. (Paradoxically for these people, this is what the Prophets are trying to teach us)

I don't mean to say we should not follow our leaders. Indeed we should follow them. But we must not follow blindly. Brigham Young gives the reason for his statement a little further on in the discourse. He says:

Brother Joseph W. Young remarked this morning that he wished the people to receive the word of the Lord through his servants, be dictated by them, and have no will of their own. I would express it in this wise: God has placed within us a will, and we should be satisfied to have it controlled by the will of the Almighty. Let the human will be indomitable for right.... Let all persons be fervent in prayer, until they know the things of God for themselves and become certain that they are walking in the path that leads to everlasting life; then will envy, the child of ignorance, vanish, and there will be no disposition in any man to place himself above another; for such a feeling meets no countenance in the order of heaven. Jesus Christ never wanted to be different from his father: they were and are one. If a people are led by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and they are cognizant of the fact through their faithfulness, there is no fear but they will be one in Christ Jesus, and see eye to eye.

In a similar vein Joseph Smith said:

Because of...the apparent imperfections of men on whom God confers authority, the question is sometimes asked,—to what extent is obedience to those who hold the priesthood required? This is a very important question, and one which should be understood by all Saints. In attempting to answer this question, we would repeat, in short, what we have already written, that willing obedience to the laws of God, administered by the Priesthood, is indispensable to salvation; but we would further add, that a proper conservative to this power exists for the benefit of all, and none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood. We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do any thing they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God, who seeks for the redemption of his fellows, would despise the idea of seeing another become his slave, who had an equal right with himself to the favour of God; he would rather see him stand by his side, a sworn enemy to wrong, so long as there was place found for it among men. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty (!) authority, have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their Presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. (Priesthood," Millennial Star 14/38 (13 November 1852), 594–95)

I believe we are duty bound to find out if a teaching is right or wrong. We should not take every word from a priesthood leader as indisputable. But we should find out the will of the Lord on the matter. This is simply common sense.

Now, I think this principle has become more confused over the years. There are some statements alluding to the fact that we are duty bound to follow the brethren when they speak. That when the prophet speaks "the thinking has been done". I suppose it is up to each person to determine where the truth lies in this matter.

[SF_Giants66]

So what are you guys saying? If you read what leaders have said and get a bad feeling about it that is the holy ghost telling you it isn't true but if you get a good feeling the holy ghost tells you that it is? That is actually called confirmation bias, which is human psychology confirming what the person already believes in the first place.

[SanctitasDeo]

So you are saying there is no holy ghost?

[SF_Giants66]

So you are saying there is no holy ghost?

I personally don't believe in a holy ghost or any kind of spirit. However, that doesn't mean I can prove one doesn't exist.

However, if you're saying the holy ghost can decipher what is true and what isn't to you, what kind of margin of error to you account for?

I remember when I was younger I used to think I was getting certain promptings from the spirit and found out later that I was wrong about my initial impression.

[james12]

So what are you guys saying? If you read what leaders have said and get a bad feeling about it that is the holy ghost telling you it isn't true but if you get a good feeling the holy ghost tells you that it is? That is actually called confirmation bias, which is human psychology confirming what the person already believes in the first place.

As I said earlier, any serious member of this church must learn to hear the promptings of the Holy Ghost. It is the means we have been given to distinguish truth from error. It is not mearly some feel good philosophy.

At first it may be hard to distinguish our feelings from the Holy Ghost but they are different. As one listens and follows, the witness of the Holy Ghost becomes more sure. This is part of what makes this discussion difficult. If we cannot distinguish then we follow more blindly.

[james12]

I personally don't believe in a holy ghost or any kind of spirit. However, that doesn't mean I can prove one doesn't exist.

This is interesting. What keeps you a member of this church if you don't believe in the Holy Ghost and personal revelation?

[SF_Giants66]

This is interesting. What keeps you a member of this church if you don't believe in the Holy Ghost and personal revelation?

I haven't been a member of this church for two years.

[SanctitasDeo]

I personally don't believe in a holy ghost or any kind of spirit. However, that doesn't mean I can prove one doesn't exist.

However, if you're saying the holy ghost can decipher what is true and what isn't to you, what kind of margin of error to you account for?

I remember when I was younger I used to think I was getting certain promptings from the spirit and found out later that I was wrong about my initial impression.

Thank you. I wanted more context for your earlier statement. I am willing to assign a margin of error. However, I don't think it has been wrong yet. Not even when I was younger. I could be wrong, of course.

[Tough Grits]

I haven't been a member of this church for two years.

james12 was rightfully confused, as in the upper right corner of your posts it says Mormon/LDS/Christian. ~TG

Edited March 9, 2013 by Tough Grits
Oops! Typo!!