Assuming Joseph Smith was a prophet...

[chasingthewind]

If I am confident that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God then how do I make the next step and conclude Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, ...., Monson were/are prophets as well?  What is the connection between them?

What about when two prophets contradict each other?  Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith both taught that polygamy is essential for exaltation while modern Mormon prophets no longer teach this.  What am I supposed to make of this?

[Jane_Doe]

22 minutes ago, idontknow said:

If I am confident that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God then how do I make the next step and conclude Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, ...., Monson were/are prophets as well? 

The same way you concluded that about Joseph Smith

22 minutes ago, idontknow said:

What is the connection between them?

If you asking how succession works, I recommend this article: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/additional-resource/succession-in-the-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

If you're asking something else, I apologize that I misunderstood. 

22 minutes ago, idontknow said:

What about when two prophets contradict each other?  Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith both taught that polygamy is essential for exaltation while modern Mormon prophets no longer teach this.  What am I supposed to make of this?

For starters, we determine whether or not is actually a contradiction.  Things to consider:

1) If the issue at hand is a change in procedure (such as polygamy being ordered or forbidden on this Earth), then the most recent prophet tells you the most recent procedure.

2) For doctrinal issues: is that matter being discussed in an infallible fashion, or is a person giving their human opinion on it?

3) Are they describing the different aspects of the same thing?  Such as in the story of 4 blind men describing different parts of the same elephant. 

If you have any more specific examples, feel free to ask.

 

 

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, idontknow said:

What about when two prophets contradict each other?  Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith both taught that polygamy is essential for exaltation while modern Mormon prophets no longer teach this.  What am I supposed to make of this?

There was no contradiction.  You just need to learn more about what was happening.  Why did the Jews have to live a Kosher life and we don't need to anymore?  Is the God of the Old Testament false and the God of the New Testament is true?  Of course not.  But there were reasons He did what He did and changed commandments of the era.

Learn more about it.  Learn more details and recognize that you don't know everything.  Learn with the attitude of "I'm waiting to hear the answer.  In the meantime, I'm continuing in faith."  We are not people who demand of God,"No.  You MUST explain everything to me before I give you anything."  We have faith.  We trust in Him until we do understand.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, idontknow said:

Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, ...., Monson were/are prophets as well?  What is the connection between them?

The method of succession is described in a book of scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants.  While it was unclear at the time of Joseph Smith's death, the information is there.  

Because there was no precedent, and people interpreted the scriptures differently, a council was held with all available members of the faith.  Several leaders vied for the position.  Brigham was one of them.  His claim was that the next senior apostle was to take over the stewardship of the Church.  Brigham was the next senior apostle.  Others had their claims.  They all made their case.  They all prayed.

Remember the story of Elijah and Elisha.  When they went across the river, Elijah used his coat to part the waters.  Elijah was taken into heaven.  When Elisha returned, he used the same coat to part the waters again.  This was a sign to the people that Elisha was the chosen successor to Elijah.

To parallel this miracle of old, another miracle was wrought to show the people that Brigham was the chosen successor to Joseph.  Since then, we've come to understand the line of succession contained in the D&C.  

Near the time of Brigham's death, he told the entire general council of the Church "John Taylor stands next to me in seniority.  I want that made perfectly clear."  So, there was no question who would succeed him.

And we continue that method (the next senior apostle) today.  And today it is Thomas S. Monson, the current prophet.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Guest

[skalenfehl]

3 hours ago, idontknow said:

If I am confident that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God then how do I make the next step and conclude Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, ...., Monson were/are prophets as well?  What is the connection between them?

What about when two prophets contradict each other?  Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith both taught that polygamy is essential for exaltation while modern Mormon prophets no longer teach this.  What am I supposed to make of this?

 

8 ...Have ye inquired of the Lord?

[bytebear]

My opinion is that only one church that emerged from Joseph Smith's foundation fulfills prophecy regarding the nature of Christ's Church and its global mission.

[Just_A_Guy]

10 hours ago, idontknow said:

If I am confident that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God then how do I make the next step and conclude Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, ...., Monson were/are prophets as well?  What is the connection between them?

As @Jane_Doe says, you need to pray about them, too.  I happen to think the logical and scriptural/textual arguments in favor of the Q12 (and therefore, Young and his successors through Monson) is the strongest of any restorationist Church.  But no, it isn't an ironclad argument from a secular standpoint.  Thankfully--if you believe in individual revelation--it doesn't have to be.

What about when two prophets contradict each other?  Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith both taught that polygamy is essential for exaltation while modern Mormon prophets no longer teach this.  What am I supposed to make of this?

There's no silver-bullet answer; rather, a number of approaches should be used together to study it out.  What is the context of Young's quotes?  Are you sure he meant what his detractors want you to think he meant?  Joseph F. Smith later acknowledged post-manifesto that the practice of polygamy was not then required for exaltation.  Why would he reverse himself?  Has the Lord ever given one set of rules for one set of people, and then changed them for another set of people?  Why might He do such a thing?  What circumstances might have led other Church leaders to publicly claim that the church never could and never would abandon polygamy?  Might they have either subconsciously or deliberately overstated the case due to--say--political or legal circumstances?  Or might they have been misquoted, or just plain wrong?

Some of these questions can result in difficult answers and may even raise more questions.  But the process of addressing them thoughtfully in a "why-might-this-be-so?" (as opposed to a "how-can-this-be-so?") sort of way, can bring a lot of insight; and once you *do* get divine confirmation of the validity of the Young-through-Monson line of succession it becomes a lot easier to put any unresolved questions of "on the shelf" for a while.

[JohnsonJones]

In regards to polygamy, to expound, we are to follow the commandments and the Lord's leaders.  When polygamy was a commandment to be practiced at the time, the acceptance of the commandment and the leaders who proclaimed it were necessary.  When it was not commanded to be followed, it was no longer necessary.

In this way, many things which may be  proclaimed as necessary in one instance, may not be necessary in another.  The Bible is full of these "contraditions" in regards to the Law of Moses, and the Law that Christ taught.  Different ways of doing things are proclaimed at different times.  The things that are for your time are the things that are necessary, while those that are not for your time are not necessary.  For some it is a hard concept to grasp. 

A prime example is that it was necessary for people to follow the "word of Wisdom" set by Moses under the Mosaic Law.  They couldn't eat shellfish, pork, and other things.  After the atonement, Peter had many Jews who felt the Gentiles needed to continue following these rules.  He received a revelation that showed that they could eat what they normally had been eating.  That particular rule was no longer necessary...though Peter had experienced both when it was necessary and when it was not necessary.

As for a testimony of the prophets after Joseph Smith, that can be a bit tougher.  The best way is to pray and ask about it and "hopefully" receive a confirmation of the spirit.  That is something that no one can explain or really give to you (at least I cannot) except the Spirit.

I know that the reasoning behind Brigham Young being able to be the prophet was as follows.  Before Joseph Smith died, he gave ALL the keys that he possessed to each member of the quorum of the twelve.  Thus, they had all the powers, keys, and rights that Joseph Smith did, including being able to be called a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.  However, the church is one of order, and only one man at a time is authorized to control the keys.  Hence, while they had all the keys and power, Joseph Smith was still THE prophet, seer and revelator on the earth at the time.  When he died, that power had not left the earth, and was then possessed by the quorum of the twelve.  As the senior member, or president of the twelve is the presiding member, it falls to that individual to be THE PERSON who on the earth is the one controlling those keys, even if the rest of the quorum ALSO has those keys.

However, just that knowledge alone won't give anyone a testimony of the LDS church or it's leadership, once again, it will need to be the Holy Ghost that gives on a testimony of the leadership.

Something else to consider, is that when Christ was on the Earth, his church was not established yet.  The true church for his time was still that of the Jewish faith.  Even if the leaders were corrupt and evil, that was still the true faith.  The line of authority may have fallen a little to the wayside, but he still went to John the Baptist to be Baptized because that was where the authority and true church lay.

A little more off the beaten path, but in my opinion...

The same goes for our day.  Even, if for some reason, the leaders of our church go astray (I do not believe it has, but this is pertinent in regards to what some may think in regards to the LDS church), the authority is still there and the gospel is still the true faith.  Just as in Christ's time, until he replaces it, it is still his church and his gospel.  No matter how bad a leader may be (probably more for local leaders in some instances, especially those who get excommunicated for sin while holding local positions), that does not negate that the church is the Lord's church anymore than it negated the Jewish religion and the Jews being the Lord's people during Christ's youth and growing up.

This, of course, is JUST my opinion, and should be seen as just that, but an opinion relevant to the question posed, I think.

[Guest]

On 2/9/2017 at 0:29 PM, Carborendum said:

The method of succession is described in a book of scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants.  While it was unclear at the time of Joseph Smith's death, the information is there.  

Because there was no precedent, and people interpreted the scriptures differently, a council was held with all available members of the faith.  Several leaders vied for the position.  Brigham was one of them.  His claim was that the next senior apostle was to take over the stewardship of the Church.  Brigham was the next senior apostle.  Others had their claims.  They all made their case.  They all prayed.

Remember the story of Elijah and Elisha.  When they went across the river, Elijah used his coat to part the waters.  Elijah was taken into heaven.  When Elisha returned, he used the same coat to part the waters again.  This was a sign to the people that Elisha was the chosen successor to Elijah.

To parallel this miracle of old, another miracle was wrought to show the people that Brigham was the chosen successor to Joseph.  Since then, we've come to understand the line of succession contained in the D&C.  

Near the time of Brigham's death, he told the entire general council of the Church "John Taylor stands next to me in seniority.  I want that made perfectly clear."  So, there was no question who would succeed him.

And we continue that method (the next senior apostle) today.  And today it is Thomas S. Monson, the current prophet.

Where in the D&C can this be found?

[CV75]

On 2/9/2017 at 2:20 PM, idontknow said:

If I am confident that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God then how do I make the next step and conclude Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, ...., Monson were/are prophets as well?  What is the connection between them?

What about when two prophets contradict each other?  Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith both taught that polygamy is essential for exaltation while modern Mormon prophets no longer teach this.  What am I supposed to make of this?

Succession of the keys ensures that the prophets, seers and revelators that followed Joseph are bon afide prophets, seers and revelators. Section 1 ensures this authority is the Lord's despite any weakness (real, perceived or imagined) inherent in His mortal servants.

Edited June 3, 2017 by CV75

[Fether]

On 2/9/2017 at 0:20 PM, idontknow said:

If I am confident that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God then how do I make the next step and conclude Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, ...., Monson were/are prophets as well?  What is the connection between them?

What about when two prophets contradict each other?  Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith both taught that polygamy is essential for exaltation while modern Mormon prophets no longer teach this.  What am I supposed to make of this?

It's not the people that make them prophets, it is the priesthood. Instead of gaining a testimony in the people, gain a testimony in the power found in the church. 

If you go by people, you will have to find prayer about EVERYONE that has the priesthood.

[pam]

On 2/9/2017 at 3:40 PM, skalenfehl said:

 

8 ...Have ye inquired of the Lord?

My favorite scripture in the Book of Mormon.  Short but oh so powerful.

[fatima]

On 2/15/2017 at 9:10 AM, JohnsonJones said:

In regards to polygamy, to expound, we are to follow the commandments and the Lord's leaders.  When polygamy was a commandment to be practiced at the time, the acceptance of the commandment and the leaders who proclaimed it were necessary.  When it was not commanded to be followed, it was no longer necessary.

In this way, many things which may be  proclaimed as necessary in one instance, may not be necessary in another.  The Bible is full of these "contraditions" in regards to the Law of Moses, and the Law that Christ taught.  Different ways of doing things are proclaimed at different times.  The things that are for your time are the things that are necessary, while those that are not for your time are not necessary.  For some it is a hard concept to grasp. 

A prime example is that it was necessary for people to follow the "word of Wisdom" set by Moses under the Mosaic Law.  They couldn't eat shellfish, pork, and other things.  After the atonement, Peter had many Jews who felt the Gentiles needed to continue following these rules.  He received a revelation that showed that they could eat what they normally had been eating.  That particular rule was no longer necessary...though Peter had experienced both when it was necessary and when it was not necessary.

As for a testimony of the prophets after Joseph Smith, that can be a bit tougher.  The best way is to pray and ask about it and "hopefully" receive a confirmation of the spirit.  That is something that no one can explain or really give to you (at least I cannot) except the Spirit.

I know that the reasoning behind Brigham Young being able to be the prophet was as follows.  Before Joseph Smith died, he gave ALL the keys that he possessed to each member of the quorum of the twelve.  Thus, they had all the powers, keys, and rights that Joseph Smith did, including being able to be called a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.  However, the church is one of order, and only one man at a time is authorized to control the keys.  Hence, while they had all the keys and power, Joseph Smith was still THE prophet, seer and revelator on the earth at the time.  When he died, that power had not left the earth, and was then possessed by the quorum of the twelve.  As the senior member, or president of the twelve is the presiding member, it falls to that individual to be THE PERSON who on the earth is the one controlling those keys, even if the rest of the quorum ALSO has those keys.

However, just that knowledge alone won't give anyone a testimony of the LDS church or it's leadership, once again, it will need to be the Holy Ghost that gives on a testimony of the leadership.

Something else to consider, is that when Christ was on the Earth, his church was not established yet.  The true church for his time was still that of the Jewish faith.  Even if the leaders were corrupt and evil, that was still the true faith.  The line of authority may have fallen a little to the wayside, but he still went to John the Baptist to be Baptized because that was where the authority and true church lay.

A little more off the beaten path, but in my opinion...

The same goes for our day.  Even, if for some reason, the leaders of our church go astray (I do not believe it has, but this is pertinent in regards to what some may think in regards to the LDS church), the authority is still there and the gospel is still the true faith.  Just as in Christ's time, until he replaces it, it is still his church and his gospel.  No matter how bad a leader may be (probably more for local leaders in some instances, especially those who get excommunicated for sin while holding local positions), that does not negate that the church is the Lord's church anymore than it negated the Jewish religion and the Jews being the Lord's people during Christ's youth and growing up.

This, of course, is JUST my opinion, and should be seen as just that, but an opinion relevant to the question posed, I think.

Why would you believe that the gospel, the authority and the true faith would remain, even if the leaders go astray, if you accept that Joseph Smith had to restore a church that had gone astray?  

If the authority of Christ's Church remains, in spite of human failures, then that church remained in authority nearly 2000 years ago, and did not require the restoration of Joseph Smith, right?

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, fatima said:

Why would you believe that the gospel, the authority and the true faith would remain, even if the leaders go astray, if you accept that Joseph Smith had to restore a church that had gone astray?  

If the authority of Christ's Church remains, in spite of human failures, then that church remained in authority nearly 2000 years ago, and did not require the restoration of Joseph Smith, right?

I don't agree fully with JohnsonJones' apparent intent here; I think it *is* (hypothetically) possible for the centralized Church leadership to make such a colossal error as to forfeit their authoritative claims.  (The thing is, Mormonism is also rife with promises that that won't happen this time; and that the restoration that began in 1830 is the last restoration that will occur before the Second Coming.  And of course, when local leadership fouls up, the centralized leadership can always come out and set things to rights within a particular congregation.)

That said, the LDS narrative of what happened in primitive Christianity isn't that the original, divinely sanctioned central Church leadership fell into sin.  The LDS narrative is that the centralized Church-wide leadership was all killed, whereupon local leaders (and self-proclaimed leaders) claimed Church-wide authority which they did not in fact hold.  This lack of proper authority (and, just as problematic, the lack of concern about proper authority) stunted the church's ability to receive divine revelations and to teach pure doctrine.

The "great apostasy", as we call it, worked from the bottom up; not from the top down.  It couldn't have been top-down:  the top was just plain gone.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Just_A_Guy