What is a Prophet?

[log]

I feel this topic deserves its own thread.

There are multiple definitions of "prophet" in the Church.

The possession of the spirit of prophecy, or the testimony of Jesus Christ, is one thing that qualifies a man to be called a "prophet" in today's Church. We learn from Moses 6 that the baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost is the record of the Father and the Son, wherein a man is quickened, or born again. President Lee, the sitting president of the Church at the time, said this:

I bear witness to you that those who hold the apostolic calling may, and do, know of the reality of the mission of the Lord. To know is to be born and quickened in the inner man. (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1974], 64–65, emphasis added)

Therefore that having been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost may be a minimum qualifying experience which makes men "prophets", as the Church uses the term “prophet” today. Indeed, the Comforter received thereby enables men to prophesy as seemeth the Lord good (D&C 42:16).

It ought to be clear that "upholding and sustaining" men as "prophets, seers, and revelators," does not give them those gifts; as President Lee said, those who are called to be apostles "may" have been born again. For further reading on that subject, see President Packer's talk where he describes his call to the apostleship. And we have no scriptural guarantee that a man, called to the apostleship (even, ultimately, the First Presidency), has been born again, and the Lord has given us no guarantee of such; he calls men as seems him good. The scriptures, in fact, impose a duty upon the President of the Church "to be like unto Moses... to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church." The scripture does not say that the President of the Church has those gifts; after all, "what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift." (D&C 88:33) Therefore, once again, there is no guarantee.

So, by default, we call the Brethren "prophets, seers, and revelators" by virtue of their position in the Church, without regard to whether they have the spiritual gifts which make men prophets, seers, and revelators. Thus, upholding and sustaining the Brethren as prophets, seers, and revelators, is equivalent to upholding and sustaining them as the leaders of the Church.

The scriptures apply a different standard for when a man is to be considered a prophet. I will distinguish between persons whose position entitles them, in the modern Church, to be called "prophets, seers, and revelators," and those who meet the scriptural definition of prophet, by referring to the latter as "true prophets".

The scriptural definition of a true prophet is one who has stood in the divine council. The divine council is the council held in the heavenly temple, in the presence of the Father and the Son and all the holy angels. Such a man has the Melchizedek priesthood (D&C 107:19), for this is the power and authority of that priesthood.

It ought to be clear that no earthly ordination can possibly make one a true prophet - either one has stood in the divine council, or one has not stood in the divine council. No earthly temple, earthly ordination, nor earthly rites, are a substitute for this, even if earthly temples, ordinations, and rites may be necessary for a man to enter into the divine council. No "line of prophetic succession" can put a man in the presence of God; we attain it through our faithfulness, or not at all.

Thus, when discussing this topic, it is necessary to distinguish between "prophets," or the leadership of the Church, who may have only been born again, and true prophets, who come from the presence of the Father and the Son and the holy angels in the divine council, bearing the power and authority of the Melchizedek priesthood, and testimony from God.

An objection was raised, and responded to thusly:

log, I find it difficult to respond to your posts because of their presumptuous nature. You teach your opinion as fact and falshoods as truth. For example:

In quoting Pres. Lee
I bear witness to you that those who hold the apostolic calling may, and do, know of the reality of the mission of the Lord. To know is to be born and quickened in the inner man. (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1974], 64–65, emphasis added)

You site the word "may" as meaning maybe. But when followed by "and do" the word "may" means "are allowed to" or "are granted to."

You may interpret "may" that way if you wish. I believe I consistently used the word "may." Whatever President Lee meant, I mean. As he was talking about 14 (possibly 15) men, I find "maybe" to be plausible, because he clearly didn't mean "do," or there would have been no "may" about it. Some of them surely had been, after all.

And then you said

And we have no scriptural guarantee that a man, called to the apostleship (even, ultimately, the First Presidency), has been born again, and the Lord has given us no guarantee of such

To be called as an apostle and not be born again? That's what I would call a contradictory statement. Even the Lord said in D&C 107:23:

The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world...

Kind of hard to be a special witness of Christ when you haven't even been born again.

I agree, it would be very hard to be a special witness of Christ in those circumstances. Christ calls whom he calls, even if they're not qualified spiritually. Reed Smoot was one such:

"The change in the apostolic 'charge' apparently began with the appointment of Reed Smoot as an apostle in 1900. General church authorities had long regarded him as 'reliable in business, but [he] has little or no faith.' President Lorenzo Snow blessed him to receive 'the light of the Holy Ghost' so that he could bear testimony of Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. That was an extraordinary departure from the apostolic charge as given since 1835.(PtHG, p.244)

Heber J. Grant was another:

When I was called to the apostleship I felt so unworthy that I desired to decline the honor. Even after my ordination this feeling continued until about three months later while on a mission with Brigham Young Jr. in Arizona. I was one day riding alone and thinking of my unworthiness, when the Spirit impressed me just as though a voice had spoken, “You were not worthy but the Prophet Joseph to whom you will belong in the next world, and your father, have interceded for you that you might be called, and now it remains for you to prove yourself worthy.” (Heber J. Grant, quoted in Abraham H. Cannon Journals, L. Tom Perry Special Collections Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, entry for 2 April 1891; reproduced in Dennis J. Horne (editor), The Journals of Abraham H. Cannon (Clearfield, Utah: Gnolaum Books, 2004), 179)

And, as an historical example, Judas was an apostle, called by Christ directly.

So, the fact of the matter remains that a calling, or position in the Church, is no guarantee of anything.

[natasha]

May not be a guarantee of anything, hmmm! I would say that on the onset of accepting a calling in the Church and then being set apart as such...and then doing all in your power to fulfill that calling...might probably guarantee that the Lord will certainly help that individual.

[Amonhi]

There are multiple definitions of "prophet" in the Church.

The following quotes are all from TotPJS:

"Salvation cannot come without revelation; it is in vain for anyone to minister without it. No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a Prophet. No man can be a minister of Jesus Christ except he has the testimony of Jesus; and this is the spirit of prophecy. Whenever salvation has been administered, it has been by testimony. Men of the present time testify of heaven and hell, and have never seen either; and I will say that no man knows these things without this." - Section Four 1839-42, p.160

"Fifth--"Do you believe Joseph Smith, Jun., to be a Prophet?"
"Yes, and every other man who has the testimony of Jesus. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.--Revelation, 19:10th verse." - Section Three 1838-39, p.119

"Faith comes by hearing the word of god, through the testimony of the servants of God; that testimony is always attended by the Spirit of prophecy and revelation." - Section Three 1838-39, p.148

"What Constitutes a Prophet? - If any person should ask me if I were a prophet, I should not deny it, as that would give me the lie; for, according to John, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy; therefore, if I profess to be a witness or teacher, and have not the spirit of prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus, I must be a false witness; but if I be a true teacher and witness, I must possess the spirit of prophecy, and that constitutes a prophet; and any man who says he is a teacher or a preacher of righteousness, and denies the spirit of prophecy, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; and by this key false teachers and impostors may be detected. (Dec. 30, 1842.) DHC 5:215-216."Section Five 1842-43, p.269

"Many of the sects cry out, "Oh, I have the testimony of Jesus; I have the spirit of God; but away with Joe Smith; he says he is a prophet; but there are to be no prophets or revelators in the last days." Stop, sir! The Revelator says that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy; so by your own mouth you are condemned." - Section Six 1843-44, p.312

___________________________________

Here is the quote from John that Joseph keeps referring to above:

Rev. 19:
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Here is a Book of Mormon quote making a similar connection:

Alma 6: 8
8 And Alma went and began to declare the word of God unto the church which was established in the valley of Gideon, according to the revelation of the truth of the word which had been spoken by his fathers, and according to the spirit of prophecy which was in him, according to the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who should come to redeem his people from their sins, and the holy order by which he was called. And thus it is written. Amen.

___________________________________

When Old/New Testament and Book of Mormon speak of Prophets, they are in most cases NOT speaking of the President of the Church or the ordained apostles. They are referring to those who have a testimony of Christ through the spirit of revelation, (Holy Ghost), for example:

Amos who said:

Amos 3:
7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

...was an example of how God reveals his secrets to his servants the prophets/those with the testimony of Christ:

Amos 7:
14 Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit:
15 And the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.

Notice that he received no other calling, ordination, fan fair or recognition. He was called in the same way other prophets like Lehi were called, (1Ne. 1:18). Nephi also follows suit and begins to prophecy without ordination. Where does he get his authority to prophecy/receive revelation over others? He tells us,

"And the Holy Ghost giveth authority that I should speak these things, and deny them not." - 1Ne. 10:22

This goes back to D&C 68 which, referring to missionaries, but applies to anyone speaking by the Power of the Holy Ghost:

D&C 68:
3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
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.
5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.

___________________________________

Here Moses is saying everyone should be prophets. This is what the Church of the Firstborn is like...

Numbers 11:
27 And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.
28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.
29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!

___________________________________

Some additional quotes regarding prophets being those who have a testimony or being filled with the Holy Ghost:

2 Pet. 1: 21
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Moses 6: 8
8 Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God. And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

JS-H 1: 73
73 Immediately on our coming up out of the water after we had been baptized, we experienced great and glorious blessings from our Heavenly Father. No sooner had I baptized Oliver Cowdery, than the Holy Ghost fell upon him, and he stood up and prophesied many things which should shortly come to pass. And again, so soon as I had been baptized by him, I also had the spirit of prophecy, when, standing up, I prophesied concerning the rise of this Church, and many other things connected with the Church, and this generation of the children of men. We were filled with the Holy Ghost, and rejoiced in the God of our salvation.

The Lord says that the D&C was given so that...

D&C 1:
19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—
20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

Alma 8: 24
24 And behold, I have been called to preach the word of God among all this people, according to the spirit of revelation and prophecy; and I was in this land and they would not receive me, but they cast me out and I was about to set my back towards this land forever.

Alma 5: 47
47 And moreover, I say unto you that it has thus been revealed unto me, that the words which have been spoken by our fathers are true, even so according to the spirit of prophecy which is in me, which is also by the manifestation of the Spirit of God.

Jacob 4: 6
6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can ccommand in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.

Alma 17: 3
3 But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God.

Don't deny the spirit of revelation and prophecy in yourself.
D&C 11: 25
25 Deny not the spirit of revelation, nor the spirit of prophecy, for wo unto him that denieth these things;

[log]

Amonhi,

Thank you for that, which added not a whit to what was already contained in the OP.

One of the things I have noticed throughout your posts is that you don't actually seem to read what you are responding to. This is transparently obvious in your post this time, as well.

[Simon]

Amonhi,

Thank you for that, which added not a whit to what was already contained in the OP.

One of the things I have noticed throughout your posts is that you don't actually seem to read what you are responding to. This is transparently obvious in your post this time, as well.

Considering how much we have discussed this topic lately, we either need to say that nothing we write about it really adds anymore good to it, or every hint and dot is of great benefit to cast out the confusion that seems quiet apparent..

I liked Amohis post quiet a bit here.. Great quotes that pretty much say it all .. Don't know how there can beany further confusion..

Prophets are simply all those that receive revelations from heaven, and those that posess a testimony of Christ. It's as simple as that. Wether one is called to lead the church, or just his own family doesnt say anything about him being a prophet.. It's never limited to an callig or assignment, but to our personal connection to heaven.

The real question most discuss about, is wether our leaders today have the gift of prophecy, or wether they are merely leaders with good thoughts and intentions.. Isn't this what all these discussions are realy about ? And since some feel they are prophets, and others don't, we always come back to that discussion.. But my honest and humble opinion is that if someone has a testimony that they are porphets, than to him they are.. and if another doesn't, then they are not..

In my sight it woud be of much greater benefit to look at our own ability to receive revelations.. How can we get there ? Everything else, how I see it, is just discussion it all dead and running in circles, repeating the same statements over and over, just to proove a personal point of view.

Amonhis post is quiet clear, and everyone should read those statements made by Joseph the prophet.. Simple thoughts, but great thoughts..

[briznian]

Amonhi,

Thank you for that, which added not a whit to what was already contained in the OP.

One of the things I have noticed throughout your posts is that you don't actually seem to read what you are responding to. This is transparently obvious in your post this time, as well.

If I could down vote this post I would. Not only does it "add not a whit" but it also makes you come off as a real big jerk. I guess we'll all just ask for log's permission now before we post so we can have assurance that we are adding to the discussion and not wasting his valuable time on here.

[briznian]

I apologize for log for the previous post. It is not my place either to check others.

I will leave the previous post up as a testimony of my flaws and weaknesses.

[log]

I guess we'll all just ask for log's permission now before we post so we can have assurance that we are adding to the discussion and not wasting his valuable time on here.

Solomon had harsher words than I have uttered here for that: "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

[log]

Prophets are simply all those that receive revelations from heaven, and those that posess a testimony of Christ. It's as simple as that.

It's actually not as simple as that. Joseph extended the definition of the word "prophet" downward from the scriptures to include what the scripture calls "saints."

Saint, or "sanctified one," or "holy one," is the label the scriptures use for them who have received the baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost, who have received the record of the Father and the Son, and who are possessed of the Holy Spirit. And you'll find that I acknowledged in the OP that we in the Church call them, who are properly termed "saints," "prophets."

Amonhi repeats Joseph on this point, ironically in my view.

I'm not a fan of inconsistency, scriptural or intellectual.

We in the church today call mere believers "saints," while we call saints "prophets," and we cast the true prophets out from among us.

We call mere belief "faith," while we call faith "knowledge," and in reality have no knowledge.

I have got no good thing to say about the efforts of those who further that confusion, whereby the scriptures are transfigured.

[Simon]

Prophets are simply all those that receive revelations from heaven, and those that posess a testimony of Christ. It's as simple as that.

It's actually not as simple as that. Joseph extended the definition of the word "prophet" downward from the scriptures to include what the scripture calls "saints."

Prophets are those to whom truth gets revealed. May that be saints, holy ones, children, women, man and what not. There may be different names for different stations of development, there may be different asignments in leaderchip, but the gift of prophecy itselfe is quiet simple to understand. I believe where confusion comes in is less the question what a prophet is, but rather who a prophet is, how that relates to us, and how we can truely dicern ourselves.. But thats just how I see it.

We call mere belief "faith," while we call faith "knowledge," and in reality have no knowledge.

[/quote][/quote]

Thats in deed a problem.

[log]

Prophets are those to whom truth gets revealed.

Then, behold, the Jews were led by a prophet at the time of Christ.

John 11
47 ¶Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

[Simon]

Prophets are those to whom truth gets revealed.

Then, behold, the Jews were led by a prophet at the time of Christ.

John 11
47 ¶Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

Imagine you would sit in that council, and you would all talk about what to do against this man called Jesus Christ. Suddenly there was this Caiaphas, who was relatievely new in his calling as high priest.. He gets up, and says the following words :

" Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expediet for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.."

..

Either he knew more then we get out of those scripures, or he did nothing more than to mock Christ, speaking of thing he didn' understand himselfe, but that were truth.

I do not change my position, especially not because of that scripture.. A true prophet is a person receiving true revelations from God. It keeps being that simple. Let's not make everyhing so complicated.

[briznian]

I guess we'll all just ask for log's permission now before we post so we can have assurance that we are adding to the discussion and not wasting his valuable time on here.

Solomon had harsher words than I have uttered here for that: "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

Then I suggest that until you have proven that you are the equal of Solomon then you should refrain criticizing. You seem to hold others to an impossibly high standard that you don't keep for yourself.

[log]

I guess we'll all just ask for log's permission now before we post so we can have assurance that we are adding to the discussion and not wasting his valuable time on here.

Solomon had harsher words than I have uttered here for that: "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

You seem to hold others to an impossibly high standard that you don't keep for yourself.

I read posts before I respond. I am truly sorry if that seems an impossibly high standard for you.

[log]

I do not change my position, especially not because of that scripture.. A true prophet is a person receiving true revelations from God. It keeps being that simple. Let's not make everyhing so complicated.

It's not complicated at all, as I showed in the OP. It just means that I won't speak to you on this subject anymore, as we don't agree on what words mean; there can be no effective communication.

[Simon]

You know log, theoreticaly, what you say here is true, but the one thing I love about LDSFF is that it is a forum of freedom. We are free to discuss, share, repeat, disagree and learn by that. To forbid someone to speak simply because he may not write what you expect him to write, sounds much like the catholic church in its beginning. I welcome everyone that wants to contribute, even if we disagree here and there. I dont want a forum where we have to ask for permition first, before we can post our thoughts, just because these thoughts may not be according to anybodys, personal laws. That desroys the entire purpose of a living discussion.

[Simon]

I do not change my position, especially not because of that scripture.. A true prophet is a person receiving true revelations from God. It keeps being that simple. Let's not make everyhing so complicated.

It's not complicated at all, as I showed in the OP. It just means that I won't speak to you on this subject anymore, as we don't agree on what words mean; there can be no effective communication.

Then dont do it, and have fun with an onesided discussion

[log]

As I said, I won't be talking to you on the subject of prophets, because we, you and I, don't agree on what words mean - therefore we, you and I, cannot communicate. There is no contribution possible where there is no communication.

I never said anyone had to ask my permission to post whatsoever they may. So, whatever you're talking about is not what I'm talking about.

[Simon]

Amonhi,

Thank you for that, which added not a whit to what was already contained in the OP.

One of the things I have noticed throughout your posts is that you don't actually seem to read what you are responding to. This is transparently obvious in your post this time, as well.

If I could down vote this post I would. Not only does it "add not a whit" but it also makes you come off as a real big jerk. I guess we'll all just ask for log's permission now before we post so we can have assurance that we are adding to the discussion and not wasting his valu
able time on here.

Dont get me wrong, I love you and many of your great posts, but sometimey it leaves the impression that you want people only to respond to your ideas if they fulfill the same, high standards you expect, otherwise they do not add anything to your discussion. The thing is, do you really just want it to be your discussion, or would it not benefit all of us to simply allow it to be a discussion, and not to limit it by personal expectations. The best discussions I bad were those where different opinions were welcome. If you want it just that way, no one will be discussing the original topic, but instead waste time for writing things like what I am writing now.

Sad thing in my opinion. But if this is what you desire, I wont try to turn this into a benefitial discussion

[log]

You are free to post what you may.

Personally, I find the qualitative difference between Joseph and all of his "successors" to be a topic of intense interest. That is why I found President Packer's talk so interesting, as well as the statement by President Lee, and that Interpreter article on the divine council.

I guess if nobody's particularly interested in those things, then it makes perfect sense that they would talk about other stuff, but in that case, wouldn't it make more sense to start another thread?

[Simon]

You are free to post what you may.

Personally, I find the qualitative difference between Joseph and all of his "successors" to be a topic of intense interest. That is why I found President Packer's talk so interesting, as well as the statement by President Lee, and that Interpreter article on the divine council.

I guess if nobody's particularly interested in those things, then it makes perfect sense that they would talk about other stuff, but in that case, wouldn't it make more sense to start another thread?

It makes more sense, but only naturally flowing discussions make fun. People just write whats on their hearts, which sometimes causes a discussion to go of track, but with your knowledge and talent, its an easy thing to direct such an discussion back to its original topic. This keeps people interested, this helps to grow and learn together. But telling people their contribution does not add one dot, keeps people away from taking part. It leads to where this discussion is now, nowhere

[Contemplator]

Log,

You seem to have a particular frustration with Amonhi, as well as with anyone who suggests an idea that is merely related, or corollary to where you think the conversation should go. There have been several really good topics disused in recent threads where your terse approach makes conversation difficult. I am not saying you are wrong, just not very patient with the rest of us. Your response to Amonhi, quoted below, is the most dismissive response I've seen on this forum.

Amonhi,

Thank you for that, which added not a whit to what was already contained in the OP.

One of the things I have noticed throughout your posts is that you don't actually seem to read what you are responding to. This is transparently obvious in your post this time, as well.

Despite the very real risk that you will treat my observations similarly, I will venture a comment that I hope adds to the conversation.

In your OP, you distinguish between those who are called "prophets" by virtue of their calling in the church and those who are "true prophets" by virtue of their experience in the divine council. Hamblin's article is very insightful. Your comments, especially your last one, in the discussion subsequent to Hamblin's article also added insight that I found worthwhile.

The final observation made by Brother Hamblin is that the endowment may be a ritual participation in the divine council. This is a thought worth considering carefully. You suggested in your comment to his article that, "The point of the endowments is that they are an invitation to arise and enter into the true divine council in heaven through our faithfulness in all things." In support of this observation, I would add a quote from Elder John Widtsoe's article, "Temple Worship" -

We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.

Next, the contribution from Amonhi, which you summarily dismissed, seems worth consideration. Amonhi quotes Joseph Smith, who meets the proposed definition of a "true prophet," as saying that a prophet is one who has the testimony of Jesus. You always want quotes from Joseph Smith or from the scriptures. Amonhi has provided a very nice set of quotes that tie together Joseph's description of prophets and prophecy with scriptural support.

Now, rather than dismissing these, why not explore their relevance? Could it be that the point of the endowment is the testimony of Jesus? And, that what Amonhi quoted from Joseph Smith and from the scriptures is relevant to your proposed statement of what constitutes a "true prophet"? Maybe the Hamblin article, the quotes from Joseph Smith, and the scriptures about prophecy are all related in a way that can inspire us to press forward towards Christ.

Just some thoughts offered in a sincere attempt to engage the OP.

[log]

Now, rather than dismissing these, why not explore their relevance?

Here's why.

The possession of the spirit of prophecy, or the testimony of Jesus Christ, is one thing that qualifies a man to be called a "prophet" in today's Church. We learn from Moses 6 that the baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost is the record of the Father and the Son, wherein a man is quickened, or born again. President Lee, the sitting president of the Church at the time, said this:

I bear witness to you that those who hold the apostolic calling may, and do, know of the reality of the mission of the Lord. To know is to be born and quickened in the inner man. (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1974], 64–65, emphasis added)

Therefore that having been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost may be a minimum qualifying experience which makes men "prophets", as the Church uses the term “prophet” today. Indeed, the Comforter received thereby enables men to prophesy as seemeth the Lord good (D&C 42:16).

The gist of Amonhi's post was contained in these seven sentences, and he introduced other errors which were obviated by the sources I cited.

[Amonhi]

Amonhi,

Thank you for that, which added not a whit to what was already contained in the OP.

One of the things I have noticed throughout your posts is that you don't actually seem to read what you are responding to. This is transparently obvious in your post this time, as well.

Peace log,

Due to lack of time, I was unable to finish responding to your entire post. I won't reference all of the quotes from my last post although I find great value in them in making my point and expressing my thoughts.... But I will briefly remake my point.

I feel this topic deserves its own thread.

There are multiple definitions of "prophet" in the Church.

I agree. But, I find that the smallest or least and most minute criteria that actually makes a person a prophet is the best. Everything more is a bonus or addition to the prophet. (I noticed that you felt the same way log, because you were pointing at the baptism of fire and the Holy ghost as the least criteria to be a prophet.)

So, what is the minimum criteria to be a prophet and why?

The possession of the spirit of prophecy, or the testimony of Jesus Christ, is one thing that qualifies a man to be called a "prophet" in today's Church.

Yes, but few understand this. And it isn't one of the qualifications, it is teh ONLY qualification. Those who have studied or researched to understand why they are sustaining the leaders of the church as prophets might have even heard this, like you have... But I think that the average Joe in the church doesn't know that they are or should be prophets and that they should not consider themselves qualified to fulfill callings in the church that include sunday school, gospel doctrine, priesthood and relief society teachers, or even giving a talks in church unless they are prophets.

"What Constitutes a Prophet? - If any person should ask me if I were a prophet, I should not deny it, as that would give me the lie; for, according to John, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy; therefore, if I profess to be a witness or teacher, and have not the spirit of prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus, I must be a false witness; but if I be a true teacher and witness, I must possess the spirit of prophecy, and that constitutes a prophet; and any man who says he is a teacher or a preacher of righteousness, and denies the spirit of prophecy, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; and by this key false teachers and impostors may be detected. (Dec. 30, 1842.) DHC 5:215-216."Section Five 1842-43, p.269

"Salvation cannot come without revelation; it is in vain for anyone to minister without it. No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a Prophet. No man can be a minister of Jesus Christ except he has the testimony of Jesus; and this is the spirit of prophecy. Whenever salvation has been administered, it has been by testimony. Men of the present time testify of heaven and hell, and have never seen either; and I will say that no man knows these things without this." - Section Four 1839-42, p.160

If you truly qualify for baptism , then you MUST have a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost through personal revelation! This means that you are a prophet even if only in that you prophecy of Jesus Christ. This is the least and only criteria to be a true prophet. Everything else is additional to this.

Anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost by personal revelation is as much a prophet as Joseph Smith, save perhaps with a little less experience being a prophet.

My understanding is that every member of the church, in a perfect world would be a prophet. That is the ideal that is pointed out throughout the scriptures. But more than this, because a Testimony of Jesus Christ through the spirit is the criteria for baptism into the church, (ideal world), we should all be prophets BEFORE we join the church.

We learn from Moses 6 that the baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost is the record of the Father and the Son, wherein a man is quickened, or born again. President Lee, the sitting president of the Church at the time, said this:

I bear witness to you that those who hold the apostolic calling may, and do, know of the reality of the mission of the Lord. To know is to be born and quickened in the inner man. (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1974], 64–65, emphasis added)

Therefore that having been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost may be a minimum qualifying experience which makes men "prophets", as the Church uses the term “prophet” today.

Are you trying to figure out what the current church doctrine is or what truth is? I am uncertain. The general membership of "the Church uses the term today" to mean The Prophet that stands as President of the church and the prophets who are 12 apostles. I don't think the general membership of the church sustain anyone else as prophets. Their are a portion who would say we are prophets over our callings. But I think that is the extend of the general membership's view. (I would love to be proven wrong on that one.)

As Far as Current Church Doctrine... I have no idea and wouldn't presume to tell Monson what he believes. (He does decide the current church doctrine, does he not?)

Maybe you are looking for the scripture's definition of a prophet and not the current church doctrine.. Please, what are you asking for?

It ought to be clear that "upholding and sustaining" men as "prophets, seers, and revelators," does not give them those gifts; as President Lee said, those who are called to be apostles "may" have been born again. For further reading on that subject, see President Packer's talk where he describes his call to the apostleship.
It would seem that the criteria to be an apostle is different than to be a prophet. Or it used to be. It changed some time ago. To be an apostle, you used to have to be "a special witness of Christ" meaning you have met him in person. Now, you have to be "a special witness of Christ" meaning you never met the guy, but have a testimony through the Holy Ghost which you believe is the most powerful witness you can have. #-o

And we have no scriptural guarantee that a man, called to the apostleship (even, ultimately, the First Presidency), has been born again, and the Lord has given us no guarantee of such; ...[/quote]
I agree based on the evidence of their personal lives and testimonies.

So, by default, we call the Brethren "prophets, seers, and revelators" by virtue of their position in the Church, without regard to whether they have the spiritual gifts which make men prophets, seers, and revelators.

Well, yes... We do.. But as it doesn't take much to be a prophet, it isn't hard to accept them as prophets. Revelators is just someone who receives a revelation and shares it. New information the we learned from the spiritual. They do that too. The Seer is a bit trickier because it means that they are able to see that which cannot be seen by the natural eyes. Some do and some don't. A Seer is also a prophet and a Revelator and the greater gift.

Mosiah 8:16 - 16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.

Thus, upholding and sustaining the Brethren as prophets, seers, and revelators, is equivalent to upholding and sustaining them as the leaders of the Church.

Yes, but I do honestly believe they are prophets and revelators, but the most basic definitions. I sustain myself as a prophet, seer and revelator as much as any man, by the basic definitions. I think we all should or we should gain those gifts so we can.

The scriptures apply a different standard for when a man is to be considered a prophet. I will distinguish between persons whose position entitles them, in the modern Church, to be called "prophets, seers, and revelators," and those who meet the scriptural definition of prophet, by referring to the latter as "true prophets".

Ok.

The scriptural definition of a true prophet is one who has stood in the divine council. The divine council is the council held in the heavenly temple, in the presence of the Father and the Son and all the holy angels. Such a man has the Melchizedek priesthood (D&C 107:19), for this is the power and authority of that priesthood.

I read the link and I disagree that prophets are only those who have sat in or seen the councils of God. At best this would be more closely related to a seer. But, that is at best. I believe that Hamlin is very well studied and may have found something but not what he believes he found.

It ought to be clear that no earthly ordination can possibly make one a true prophet - either one has stood in the divine council, or one has not stood in the divine council.

If your definition of a "true Prophet" is someone who has stood in the divine counsel, then I can accept your definition while talking to you so that I understand what you are saying. But I don't think it is accurate with scriptures. The problem is that if I gave you examples of prophet who are considered prophets without a record of great and glorious visions of the courts of God it would be no proof that they had not had that experience because no evidence is not evidence to the contrary. But, I can say that a prophet can be a child or an non-member or anyone who has the basic testimony of truth from the Holy Ghost with is the spirit by which we prophecy. So, if you or anyone has experienced the testimony of Jesus Christ, through the Holy Ghost then you have experienced the spirit of prophecy. And a person who has experienced the spirit of Prophecy is a prophet. The very least role of a prophet is to testify of Christ and point others toward the same experiences. Even a child can do that by way of testimony.

I have been privy to future events many times by way of revelation and not even vision and have testified of them and seen them happen. That alone makes a person a prophet. If someone gained a testimony that Christ will come again, and they tell people about it, they are a prophet prophesying.

No earthly temple, earthly ordination, nor earthly rites, are a substitute for this,

I agree that the spiritual is not subject to the physical and that we cannot become prophets based on some dead ritual act and that we are prophets based on the spiritual alone. But having the great visions that you call the Council of God is not a requirement to be a prophet.

Thus, when discussing this topic, it is necessary to distinguish between "prophets," or the leadership of the Church, who may have only been born again, and true prophets, who come from the presence of the Father and the Son and the holy angels in the divine council, bearing the power and authority of the Melchizedek priesthood, and testimony from God.

If you are calling True prophets those who have seen grand visions of heaven, what are you calling true prophets who have a testimony through the spirit of things past present and future?

An objection was raised, and responded to thusly:

log, I find it difficult to respond to your posts because of their presumptuous nature. You teach your opinion as fact and falshoods as truth. For example:

In quoting Pres. Lee
I bear witness to you that those who hold the apostolic calling may, and do, know of the reality of the mission of the Lord. To know is to be born and quickened in the inner man. (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1974], 64–65, emphasis added)

You site the word "may" as meaning maybe. But when followed by "and do" the word "may" means "are allowed to" or "are granted to."

You may interpret "may" that way if you wish. I believe I consistently used the word "may." Whatever President Lee meant, I mean. As he was talking about 14 (possibly 15) men, I find "maybe" to be plausible, because he clearly didn't mean "do," or there would have been no "may" about it. Some of them surely had been, after all.

I will add to this that it doesn't matter what President Lee meant. The fact is that they, many of them have no more testimony or witness than that of a new convert who has gained a witness by the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ. This is based on their own admission, not guess work. They lead the church not by the direction of Christ in person, physical or in vision, or grand councils in heaven, but by the still small voice of the spirit like a primary teacher or home and visiting teacher. (This was discussed in How the Lord Leads the Church Today). That thread may have some bearing on your points here.)

And then you said
And we have no scriptural guarantee that a man, called to the apostleship (even, ultimately, the First Presidency), has been born again, and the Lord has given us no guarantee of such
To be called as an apostle and not be born again? That's what I would call a contradictory statement. Even the Lord said in D&C 107:23:
The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world...
Kind of hard to be a special witness of Christ when you haven't even been born again.

It seems we are lumping multiple terms together...Apostle, prophet, special witness, ... They each are not the same thing.

So, the fact of the matter remains that a calling, or position in the Church, is no guarantee of anything.[/quote][/quote]
I agree.

Perhaps you will feel that this post adds a few more wits to the thread...

Humbly,
Amonhi

[log]

Perhaps you will feel that this post adds a few more wits to the thread...

Not really. Sorry.

The post was an attempt to express truth, and to explain the difference between Joseph and his "successors."

And, interesting fact - I disagree with Joseph on what constitutes a prophet. Oddly, the scriptures don't say that possession of the spirit of prophecy is the minimal definition of "prophet."