A Continued Discussion about Prophets

[AshleyB]

AshleyB wrote:
"Yeah it is and I do feel a bit bad for helping to derail it but since I started the thread to begin with I don't feel THAT bad.

And by all means butt in Ajax. I stated many times that the calling of Prophet comes only from God. A man certainly cannot make another man a prophet. What Ajax has said is what I believe as well. I didn't say that a President can't be a prophet. I said hypothetically a President may not be one."
Not according to scripture or Joseph Smith. The the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve all accept being sustained as apostles.

prophets seers and revelators. I can't imagine they would be allowed to perpetrate a fraud, unless it is a false church.

"They don't automatically rise to become one by virtue of the office they hold."
According to scripture, they sure do.

"Just like a Bishop may not necessarily preside in the manner a Bishop is intended to Preside. Meaning a President can be called without already being one and may not become one in the same sense that Joseph was."
Not according to scripture. I would sure like to see what scriptures your views are based upon. It sounds like opinion to me, personally.

"When Presidents and Apostles used to be called they were each always charged with the obligation of becoming such."
Citation?

"That charge was however later dropped and no longer really seen as necessary as far as I understand it."
Citation?

"There are journal entries from President Grant himself talking about how he felt spiritually inept and how he didn't even desire to receive visions and things like that because he was afraid if he did he might become prideful and damn himself."
I think prophets and apostles feeling inadequate and afraid of their charge is common theme throughout history. Peter denied Christ 3 times. Johan did not want to teach in Ninevah. Joseph Smith reportedly did not want to teach certain doctrines. As Joseph Smith said, prophets are fallible men.

"I am not saying President Grant never received revelations because I have no doubt he did. All of us do but can we realistically see him to be the same caliber of Prophet that Joseph was if he never saw visions or saw the Savior? I don't think so."
He was a caliber acceptable enough for God, and me.

"Interestingly, after a certain point the church started requiring apostles and Presidents to sign over their personal journals and things to the church so when they died it would be church property. It is interesting to me that they would do that."
At what certain point did that happen.

"I also never said Brigham wasn't a prophet or that Joseph didn't think him to be. You are inferring a lot of things that I haven't said. I simply said that Brigham never referred to himself as the The Prophet and generally referred to Joseph as "The Prophet". There is a lot of info out there if you really want to try and find some of these things out and see if I am as far off as you think."
I'm sure I've seen all of it. It doesn't override anything in the Scriptures however.

"Some things I have learned come from Historians who had access to church archives that the lay member has no access to. I get some of my information from them. You have to do your own historical research and come to your own conclusions however, because any ones view of history will be somewhat biased."
If basic doctrines can only be discovered by historical materials not available to the public only accessible through special contacts then we're all in trouble.

"I have read a lot of stuff and there is no way for me to tell you where everything is and even then it is my view of what I read. The History part was something I just added in to help you understand where I am coming from. I don't really see D&C saying what you said either."
How do you see it. D&C 107 gives power and authority to anyone called to be an apostle or president, or prophet.

"Iv'e enjoyed this dialogue with you but I will likely not respond after this post because we are derailing this thread. Unless someone wants to start another thread... ooops..lol."
I'd be happy to continue this in another thread if the mods can split it off.

[TheProfessor]

Red text FTW

I think many would agree that Joseph was different; that there will indeed never be another prophet like Joseph, given the unique role he played in the grand scheme of things. I think every prophet (and president) of the Church since Joseph has felt the same way.

Not sure what to make of the comments about presidents who don't preside or people who don't hold a calling even though they have been called/set apart. All of this goes back to the Priesthood Keys. Those who hold those keys preside, and those keys are given by the laying on of hands. When those keys are transmitted, that individual presides.

[AshleyB]

AshleyB wrote:
"Yeah it is and I do feel a bit bad for helping to derail it but since I started the thread to begin with I don't feel THAT bad.

And by all means butt in Ajax. I stated many times that the calling of Prophet comes only from God. A man certainly cannot make another man a prophet. What Ajax has said is what I believe as well. I didn't say that a President can't be a prophet. I said hypothetically a President may not be one."
Not according to scripture or Joseph Smith. The the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve all accept being sustained as apostles.

prophets seers and revelators. I can't imagine they would be allowed to perpetrate a fraud, unless it is a false church.
First off I am confused with why you are debating me on this issue when several posts up in the previous thread you somehow inferred that I said the calling of Prophet does not come from God. I was reiterating and clarifying that the Calling of Prophet only comes from God and now you are stating the opposite? Your statements seem contradictory to me and I can't really say what point you are trying to make. Please clarify.

"They don't automatically rise to become one by virtue of the office they hold."
According to scripture, they sure do.
What scriptures says that when a person is called as President of the church they automatically become a Prophet? I have never read anything in the scriptures that say that.

"Just like a Bishop may not necessarily preside in the manner a Bishop is intended to Preside. Meaning a President can be called without already being one and may not become one in the same sense that Joseph was."
Not according to scripture. I would sure like to see what scriptures your views are based upon. It sounds like opinion to me, personally. This is not opinion. No one automatically rises to a charge by simply being given a calling or participating in a physical ordinance for example. Otherwise everyone who participates in the temple will have walked out having met the Savior, been brought back into the Father's presence and been redeemed from the fall. That is not how it works. An invitation to rise does not mean you have risen.

"When Presidents and Apostles used to be called they were each always charged with the obligation of becoming such."
Citation? When apostles are called part of their calling is to be prophets, seers, and revelators. The early apostles were admonished to make their ordination complete by doing and receiving certain things such as being a special witness by actually witnessing the resurrected Savior. I cannot remember all of the wording but this instruction and invitation they received to make thier ordination complete is real and was told to them by Joseph Smith. One of my books has the citation for the words of Joseph but unfortunately that book is out on loan. I have tried to do a google search but haven't found it yet. I will post it when I find it or if someone else finds it before me they can post it and that would be great.

"That charge was however later dropped and no longer really seen as necessary as far as I understand it."
Citation? I don't have an exact date as to when the practice was stopped but all you have to do is listen to words from some of the brethren within the last decade and probably farther to see that old requirement is not seen as necessary anymore. Here are some quotes from President Packer illustrating it.

One question often asked about the qualifications of an Apostle was answered by Elder Boyd K. Packer:
�Occasionally . . . I have been asked a question. Usually it comes as a curious, almost an idle, question about the qualifications to stand as a witness for Christ. The question they ask is, �Have you seen Him?�
�That is a question that I have never asked of another. I have not asked that question of my brethren in the Quorum, thinking that it would be so sacred and so personal that one would have to have some special inspiration, indeed, some authorization, even to ask it.... There are some things just too sacred to discuss...."
...The witness of Jesus Christ which is given to the Apostles is more powerful than that which can be obtained by sight:
�They [the Twelve Apostles] are special witnesses for Jesus Christ. It is their right to know the truth and to have an abiding witness. This is an exacting duty upon them, to know that Jesus Christ is in very deed the Only Begotten Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, and the Savior of all those who will confess their sins, repent, and keep his commandments. The question frequently arises: �Is it necessary for a member of the Council of the Twelve to see the Savior in order to be an apostle?� It is their privilege to see him if occasion requires, but the Lord has taught that there is a stronger witness than seeing a personage, even of seeing the Son of God in a vision. Impressions on the soul that come from the Holy Ghost are far more significant than a vision. When Spirit speaks to spirit, the imprint upon the soul is far more difficult to erase. Every member of the Church should have impressions that Jesus is the Son of God indelibly pictured on his soul through the witness of the Holy Ghost.� (Joseph Fielding Smith, �The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve,� Improvement Era, Nov. 1966, p. 979.)

"There are journal entries from President Grant himself talking about how he felt spiritually inept and how he didn't even desire to receive visions and things like that because he was afraid if he did he might become prideful and damn himself."
I think prophets and apostles feeling inadequate and afraid of their charge is common theme throughout history. Peter denied Christ 3 times. Johan did not want to teach in Ninevah. Joseph Smith reportedly did not want to teach certain doctrines. As Joseph Smith said, prophets are fallible men.
I never said his feelings of inadequacy were wrong or bad. We all feel like that sometimes.


"I am not saying President Grant never received revelations because I have no doubt he did. All of us do but can we realistically see him to be the same caliber of Prophet that Joseph was if he never saw visions or saw the Savior? I don't think so."
He was a caliber acceptable enough for God, and me.
Once again you seem to be putting meaning behind my words which are not there. Please don't do that. If you have a question about my intent please just ask me. I never said I did not accept him. I wasn't judging him in anyway or inferring that he was lesser somehow for not having received those things. But it is logical to conclude if a person hasn't made their ordination complete or hasn't received the same or equal experiences to Joseph they are simply not at the same level of Joseph Smith. My conclusions are void of any contempt or judging emotions. They are simply logical conclusions that one would make.


"Interestingly, after a certain point the church started requiring apostles and Presidents to sign over their personal journals and things to the church so when they died it would be church property. It is interesting to me that they would do that."
At what certain point did that happen. Again, I don't have a specific date on hand for when that began but I'm not making it up.

"I also never said Brigham wasn't a prophet or that Joseph didn't think him to be. You are inferring a lot of things that I haven't said. I simply said that Brigham never referred to himself as the The Prophet and generally referred to Joseph as "The Prophet". There is a lot of info out there if you really want to try and find some of these things out and see if I am as far off as you think."
I'm sure I've seen all of it. It doesn't override anything in the Scriptures however.

Really? You are that confident you know everything there is to be known? But, you don't seem to be aware of some of the things I have brought up so I would venture to say there just may be some things you have not seen yet. I believe there is much to be learned from Historians who have seen much more than we have on church History.

"Some things I have learned come from Historians who had access to church archives that the lay member has no access to. I get some of my information from them. You have to do your own historical research and come to your own conclusions however, because any ones view of history will be somewhat biased."
If basic doctrines can only be discovered by historical materials not available to the public only accessible through special contacts then we're all in trouble. I agree. However, church History and church Doctrine are two separate things. History can help us to understand doctrine better as we see things in a proper context but I was not referring to doctrine itself.

"I have read a lot of stuff and there is no way for me to tell you where everything is and even then it is my view of what I read. The History part was something I just added in to help you understand where I am coming from. I don't really see D&C saying what you said either."
How do you see it. D&C 107 gives power and authority to anyone called to be an apostle or president, or prophet.
That isn't what you originally stated that I disagreed with. If it is I may need more clarification.
"Iv'e enjoyed this dialogue with you but I will likely not respond after this post because we are derailing this thread. Unless someone wants to start another thread... ooops..lol."
I'd be happy to continue this in another thread if the mods can split it off.

[AshleyB]

I originally only had your statements in red Seek the Truth but for some reason some of my comments are red instead of purple. I have tried to fix it multiple times but it doesn't seem to want to be fixed so hopefully you can read it without much confusion.

[Seek the Truth]

It's fine Ashley, I'll manage.

[AshleyB]

Here are my responses re-posted by themselves for your convenience.

"First off I am confused with why you are debating me on this issue when several posts up in the previous thread you somehow inferred that I said the calling of Prophet does not come from God. I was reiterating and clarifying that the Calling of Prophet only comes from God and now you are stating the opposite? Your statements seem contradictory to me and I can't really say what point you are trying to make. Please clarify."


"What scriptures says that when a person is called as President of the church they automatically become a Prophet? I have never read anything in the scriptures that say that."

"This is not opinion. No one automatically rises to a charge by simply being given a calling or participating in a physical ordinance for example. Otherwise everyone who participates in the temple will have walked out having met the Savior, been brought back into the Father's presence and been redeemed from the fall. That is not how it works. An invitation to rise does not mean you have risen."

"When apostles are called part of their calling is to be prophets, seers, and revelators absolutely. The early apostles were admonished to make their ordination complete by doing and receiving certain things such as being a special witness by actually witnessing the resurrected Savior. I cannot remember all of the wording but this instruction and invitation they received to make thier ordination complete is real and was told to them by Joseph Smith. One of my books has the citation for the words of Joseph but unfortunately that book is out on loan. I have tried to do a google search but haven't found it yet. I will post it when I find it or if someone else finds it before me they can post it and that would be great."

"I don't have an exact date as to when the practice was stopped but all you have to do is listen to words from some of the brethren within the last decade and probably farther to see that old requirement is not seen as necessary anymore. Here are some quotes from President Packer illustrating it. "

"One question often asked about the qualifications of an Apostle was answered by Elder Boyd K. Packer:
�Occasionally . . . I have been asked a question. Usually it comes as a curious, almost an idle, question about the qualifications to stand as a witness for Christ. The question they ask is, �Have you seen Him?�
�That is a question that I have never asked of another. I have not asked that question of my brethren in the Quorum, thinking that it would be so sacred and so personal that one would have to have some special inspiration, indeed, some authorization, even to ask it.... There are some things just too sacred to discuss...."
...The witness of Jesus Christ which is given to the Apostles is more powerful than that which can be obtained by sight:
�They [the Twelve Apostles] are special witnesses for Jesus Christ. It is their right to know the truth and to have an abiding witness. This is an exacting duty upon them, to know that Jesus Christ is in very deed the Only Begotten Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, and the Savior of all those who will confess their sins, repent, and keep his commandments. The question frequently arises: �Is it necessary for a member of the Council of the Twelve to see the Savior in order to be an apostle?� It is their privilege to see him if occasion requires, but the Lord has taught that there is a stronger witness than seeing a personage, even of seeing the Son of God in a vision. Impressions on the soul that come from the Holy Ghost are far more significant than a vision. When Spirit speaks to spirit, the imprint upon the soul is far more difficult to erase. Every member of the Church should have impressions that Jesus is the Son of God indelibly pictured on his soul through the witness of the Holy Ghost.� (Joseph Fielding Smith, �The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve,� Improvement Era, Nov. 1966, p. 979.)"

"I never said his feelings of inadequacy were wrong or bad. We all feel like that sometimes."

"Once again you seem to be putting meaning behind my words which are not there. Please don't do that. If you have a question about my intent please just ask me.I never said I did not accept him. I wasn't judging him in anyway or inferring that he was lesser somehow for not having received those things. But it is logical to conclude if a person hasn't made their ordination complete or hasn't received the same or equal experiences to Joseph they are simply not at the same level of Joseph Smith. My conclusions are void of any contempt or judging emotions. They are simply logical conclusions that one would make. "

"Again, I don't have a specific date on hand for when that began but I'm not making it up."

"Really? You are that confident you know everything there is to be known? But, you don't seem to be aware of some of the things I have brought up so I would venture to say there just may be some things you have not seen yet. I believe there is much to be learned from Historians who have seen much more than we have on church History. "

"I agree. However, church History and church Doctrine are two separate things. History can help us to understand doctrine better as we see things in a proper context but I was not referring to doctrine itself. "

"That isn't what you originally stated that I disagreed with. If it is I may need more clarification. "

[AshleyB]

Here are a few citations:

Orson Pratt speaking to the 12 and giving them the apostolic charge:
"You have been indebted to other men, in the first instance, for evidence; on that you have acted; but it is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven for yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God. That is more than the testimony of an angel. When the proper time arrives, you shall be able to bear this testimony to the world. When you bear testimony that you have seen God, this testimony God will never suffer to fall, but will bear you out; although many will not give heed, yet others will. You will therefore see the necessity of getting this testimony from heaven."

"Never cease striving until you have seen God face to face. Strengthen your faith; cast off you doubts, your sins, and all your unbelief; and nothing can prevent you from coming to God. Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid His hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid His hands upon His disciples, why not in latter days?"
Oliver Cowdery, Charge to the Twelve in 1835
President Joseph F. Smith

AshleyB says:
This statement is quite clear in what is required so that an apostles ordination is made complete. It is not complete until the Savior himself places his hands upon their head and ordains them. So, it stands to reason that if an apostle does not complete the charge in his lifetime than his ordination was never made complete. That is what it means to be a "special witness." If they haven't received the witness of the resurrected Savior than what makes their witness anymore special than mine or yours when we bear testimony by the Holy Ghost? Is it supposed to be special by virtue of their position alone? That wouldn't make any sense.



Here is another statement from Joseph F. Smith about the apostolic charge but he changes the words slightly which give it a bit of a different meaning. Im not sure if that was intended or not.
“These twelve disciples of Christ are supposed to be eye and ear witnesses of the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It is not permissible for them to say, I believe, simply; I have accepted it simply because I believe it. Read the revelation, the Lord informs us they must know, they must get the knowledge for themselves. It must be with them as though they had seen with their eyes and heard with their ears and they know the truth. That is their mission, to testify of Jesus Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead and clothed now with almighty power at the right hand of God, the Savior of the world. That is their mission, and their duty, and that is the doctrine and the truth that it is their duty to preach to the world and see that it is preached to the world” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1916, 6).

Here are citations for President Grant:

Statements from Heber J. Grant

“I know of no instance where the Lord has appeared to an individual since His appearance to the Prophet Joseph Smith.” – Heber J. Grant, 13 April 1926, private letter to Mrs. Claud Peery

“I have never prayed to see the Savior. I know of men – Apostles – who have seen the Savior more than once. I have prayed to the Lord for the inspiration of His Spirit to guide me, and I have told Him that I have seen so many men fall because of some great manifestation to them, they felt their importance, their greatness.” – President Heber J. Grant, 4 October 1942, probably referring to Matthias F. Cowley and John W. Taylor

Apparently, ideas about the apostolic charge changed during the time of Reed Smoot.

[Seek the Truth]

First off I am confused with why you are debating me on this issue when several posts up in the previous thread you somehow inferred that I said the calling of Prophet does not come from God. I was reiterating and clarifying that the Calling of Prophet only comes from God and now you are stating the opposite? Your statements seem contradictory to me and I can't really say what point you are trying to make. Please clarify.

Ashley, I think you have quite clearly stated that not all Presidents are Prophets, or are not necessarily Prophets. All Presidents of this dispensation have accepted the sustaining of the church of their status as a prophet, seer, and revelator.

If a President of the Church was not a Prophet, Seer and Revelator but he accepted the church sustaining him as such he would be perpetrating a fraud. A pretty significant fraud I would imagine.

What scriptures says that when a person is called as President of the church they automatically become a Prophet? I have never read anything in the scriptures that say that.

D&C 107, in a number of places.

This is not opinion. No one automatically rises to a charge by simply being given a calling or participating in a physical ordinance for example.

Well, D&C 107 says that a President is a prophet, and that apostles are of equal power to the Prophet/President. I don't see a way around that.

I've never seen any revelation ever anywhere that says that a President may not be a Prophet.

Otherwise everyone who participates in the temple will have walked out having met the Savior, been brought back into the Father's presence and been redeemed from the fall.

How so.

When Presidents and Apostles used to be called they were each always charged with the obligation of becoming such.

How can you become something you already are?

The early apostles were admonished to make their ordination complete by doing and receiving certain things such as being a special witness by actually witnessing the resurrected Savior. I cannot remember all of the wording but this instruction and invitation they received to make thier ordination complete is real and was told to them by Joseph Smith. One of my books has the citation for the words of Joseph but unfortunately that book is out on loan. I have tried to do a google search but haven't found it yet. I will post it when I find it or if someone else finds it before me they can post it and that would be great.

Thank you. I think I know some of those passages. And what I know is the JS sustained them as prophets, apostles, seers and revelators whether they had been in his presence or not.

"That charge was however later dropped and no longer really seen as necessary as far as I understand it.

I don't have an exact date as to when the practice was stopped but all you have to do is listen to words from some of the brethren within the last decade and probably farther to see that old requirement is not seen as necessary anymore.

I think you may misunderstand. Joseph as directed from on High called Apostles without them seeing Jesus, and I imagine that still happens today. Nothing seems to have changed.

"I am not saying President Grant never received revelations because I have no doubt he did. All of us do but can we realistically see him to be the same caliber of Prophet that Joseph was if he never saw visions or saw the Savior? I don't think so."

Once again you seem to be putting meaning behind my words which are not there. Please don't do that. If you have a question about my intent please just ask me. I never said I did not accept him. I wasn't judging him in anyway or inferring that he was lesser somehow for not having received those things. But it is logical to conclude if a person hasn't made their ordination complete or hasn't received the same or equal experiences to Joseph they are simply not at the same level of Joseph Smith. My conclusions are void of any contempt or judging emotions. They are simply logical conclusions that one would make.

Parsing the caliber of Prophets always reminds me of D&C 76 99-101. I see all over the internet these days people who reject prophets after Joseph Smith, or after Wilford Woodruff, or other points in time. I speak with way more non-members about the gospel than members, and these days many people reject anything not said by Jesus directly, neverminding that Jesus did not write anything in his own hand and he himself authorized his mouthpieces to speak for him.

I'm just not comfortable assessing the relative "caliber" of Prophets.

"Interestingly, after a certain point the church started requiring apostles and Presidents to sign over their personal journals and things to the church so when they died it would be church property. It is interesting to me that they would do that."

Well to revisit, what does this even mean? Is there a secret behind the scenes church doing this? If Prophets and Apostles are
uncomfortable turning over their documents, can't they just discontinue the practice? As far as I know there is no higher mortal power. If among themselves they decide to retain their private documents I don't know what the issue is?

"I also never said Brigham wasn't a prophet or that Joseph didn't think him to be. You are inferring a lot of things that I haven't said. I simply said that Brigham never referred to himself as the The Prophet and generally referred to Joseph as "The Prophet". There is a lot of info out there if you really want to try and find some of these things out and see if I am as far off as you think."

Really? You are that confident you know everything there is to be known? But, you don't seem to be aware of some of the things I have brought up so I would venture to say there just may be some things you have not seen yet. I believe there is much to be learned from Historians who have seen much more than we have on church History.

Well, no one knows everything and I don't claim to, but what I've seen so far from Snufferites or Waterman etc is nothing that ultimately backs up their claims in this regard. I imagine that if they had some real trump cards on this I would have run across them already.

People certainly tend to refer to JS as "The Prophet Joseph Smith" but that appears to be a cultural convention and of no doctrinal import, much like how we now call ourselves Mormons more often or enlarge the words JESUS CHRIST in the signage, I don't think there is anything doctrinal to derive from that.

The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have been sustained as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators for as long as we have records as far as I can tell. I imagine that is because they are all prophets, seers, and revelators.

"Some things I have learned come from Historians who had access to church archives that the lay member has no access to. I get some of my information from them. You have to do your own historical research and come to your own conclusions however, because any ones view of history will be somewhat biased."

Church History and church Doctrine are two separate things. History can help us to understand doctrine better as we see things in a proper context but I was not referring to doctrine itself.

"I have read a lot of stuff and there is no way for me to tell you where everything is and even then it is my view of what I read. The History part was something I just added in to help you understand where I am coming from.

[/quote][/quote]
Well I agree history is important, but in a public discussion forum appealing to records that are not available to the public is sort of inadmissible in legal terminology. I don't live in Utah and only ever did for a few months, but even so have some personal contacts in high places, but I can't really use that material in public discussion. None of my behind the scenes material indicates that Presidents haven't been prophets.

I don't really see D&C saying what you said either.

That isn't what you originally stated that I disagreed with. If it is I may need more clarification.

91 And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—

92 Behold, here is wisdom; yea, 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.

I guess some may find the tenses confusing in parts, but notice he says "to be", not "to hopefully become".

However if you will notice the last bit he says "bestows", not "may bestow", "sometimes bestows", "usually bestows", "occasionally bestows", etc. It's just bestows, and on the head of the church (President).

[AshleyB]

I feel like we are talking past each other a bit or something. This whole conversation really got started because I said that A President may not be a Prophet and that a Prophet doesn't have to be a President. One is a church office calling and one is a calling given by God. I don't feel this conversation is really getting anywhere and I don't think it will. We clearly see things differently. That is ok but I don't think I'm going to be able to help you see where all the "snufferites" are coming from as you call them. A term I still find a bit offensive. I am my own person. I don't want to be called a snufferite or a Monsonite or what have you. I may agree with some of snuffers views but we are not the same person. I am not some robot, carbon copy of Denver Snuffer walking around. And we don't see every single thing exactly the same way. The fact that I tend to agree with some of his views has nothing to do with him or who he is.

There seems to be plenty we agree on. I also don't like how some assume just because I have some of my views I don't listen to the brethren or that I criticise them. I have never done so. You will never find a post of me criticizing or judging them in that way. And I love an value all of them. I have learned much from each of them.

Anyway.... Id say we just agree to disagree on the President/Prophet thing. Thank you for the dialogue. I bow out of that particular discussion now. I could add more things and you would add more things but I feel like we will just keep going in circles. Also, I'm tired. lol

There is one thing you said that I wouldn't mind addressing but I don't really know what it is that you don't understand for me to address it. It was the comment I made about the temple.

"This is not opinion. No one automatically rises to a charge by simply being given a calling or participating in a physical ordinance for example. Otherwise everyone who participates in the temple will have walked out having met the Savior, been brought back into the Father's presence and been redeemed from the fall. That is not how it works. An invitation to rise does not mean you have risen." -Me

Then You said, "How so?"

Im not really sure how to address your question. Are you asking me about the temple ceremonies now? Are you asking how the ceremonies teach us about the path back to the Father? I don't know what it is that you don't understand.

[Seek the Truth]

Here are a few citations:

Orson Pratt speaking to the 12 and giving them the apostolic charge:
"You have been indebted to other men, in the first instance, for evidence; on that you have acted; but it is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven for yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God. That is more than the testimony of an angel. When the proper time arrives, you shall be able to bear this testimony to the world. When you bear testimony that you have seen God, this testimony God will never suffer to fall, but will bear you out; although many will not give heed, yet others will. You will therefore see the necessity of getting this testimony from heaven."

If they are already called to be apostles they are already called to be apostles. I don't see where in scripture or otherwise where we members are supposed to differentiate between "fully ordained" and "not fully ordained".

"Never cease striving until you have seen God face to face. Strengthen your faith; cast off you doubts, your sins, and all your unbelief; and nothing can prevent you from coming to God. Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid His hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid His hands upon His disciples, why not in latter days?"
Oliver Cowdery, Charge to the Twelve in 1835

AshleyB says:
This statement is quite clear in what is required so that an apostles ordination is made complete. It is not complete until the Savior himself places his hands upon their head and ordains them.

I have no problem with this, but Jesus clearly has no problem calling them as apostles and having them act in that capacity in the meantime.

So, it stands to reason that if an apostle does not complete the charge in his lifetime than his ordination was never made complete.

That is what it means to be a "special witness." If they haven't received the witness of the resurrected Savior than what makes their witness anymore special than mine or yours when we bear testimony by the Holy Ghost? Is it supposed to be special by virtue of their position alone? That wouldn't make any sense.

It makes sense to me, and has always made sense. I agree with the Packer quote, the Holy Ghost is not something to minimize. As far as I can tell most revelation is given by the Holy Ghost and not by visitations from the Father or Son. If there are some apostles or prophets who see him and some who don't I'm not sure what the problem is.

D&C 20:

26 Not only those who believed after he came in the meridian of time, in the flesh, but all those from the beginning, even as many as were before he came, who believed in the words of the holy prophets, who spake as they were inspired by the gift of the Holy Ghost, who truly testified of him in all things, should have eternal life...

Here is another statement from Joseph F. Smith about the apostolic charge but he changes the words slightly which give it a bit of a different meaning. Im not sure if that was intended or not.
“These twelve disciples of Christ are supposed to be eye and ear witnesses of the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It is not permissible for them to say, I believe, simply; I have accepted it simply because I believe it. Read the revelation, the Lord informs us they must know, they must get the knowledge for themselves. It must be with them as though they had seen with their eyes and heard with their ears and they know the truth. That is their mission, to testify of Jesus Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead and clothed now with almighty power at the right hand of God, the Savior of the world. That is their mission, and their duty, and that is the doctrine and the truth that it is their duty to preach to the world and see that it is preached to the world” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1916, 6).

Here are citations for President Grant:

Statements from Heber J. Grant

“I know of no instance where the Lord has appeared to an individual since His appearance to the Prophet Joseph Smith.” – Heber J. Grant, 13 April 1926, private letter to Mrs. Claud Peery

I can't find original sources on this after 30 minutes of looking, so cannot comment on it.

“I have never prayed to see the Savior. I know of men – Apostles – who have seen the Savior more than once. I have prayed to the Lord for the inspiration of His Spirit to guide me, and I have told Him that I have seen so many men fall because of some great manifestation to them, they felt their importance, their greatness.” – President Heber J. Grant, 4 October 1942, probably referring to Matthias F. Cowley and John W. Taylor

Looks like he knows people now.

He says he never prays for it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Apparently, ideas about the apostolic charge changed during the time of Reed Smoot.

[/quote]
I'm not sure, OT prophets seeing the Lord is also sketchy.

[Seek the Truth]

I feel like we are talking past each other a bit or something. This whole conversation really got started because I said that A President may not be a Prophet and that a Prophet doesn't have to be a President. One is a church office calling and one is a calling given by God.

I think Church office callings come from God.

I don't feel this conversation is really getting anywhere and I don't think it will. We clearly see things differently. That is ok but I don't think I'm going to be able to help you see where all the "snufferites" are coming from as you call them. A term I still find a bit offensive. I am my own person. I don't want to be called a snufferite or a Monsonite or what have you.

I apologize if I offended, it was not my intent, I thought I had discussed that. To me it is no different than Israelite or Nephite, Reaganite, Federalist, etc.

I may agree with some of snuffers views but we are not the same person. I am not some robot, carbon copy of Denver Snuffer walking around. And we don't see every single thing exactly the same way. The fact that I tend to agree with some of his views has nothing to do with him or who he is.

I apologize if you think I lumped you in there, I do NOT consider you a Snufferite and I apologize if I did not make that clear. In the blogosphere there are a tremendous number of people who follow him, so much that I guess he had to write some posts to tell people he didn't want any followers. People seem to quote him and his ideas all over the place and then rely on his writings to support them. If there is a better way to describe all of that I'm all ears.

There seems to be plenty we agree on. I also don't like how some assume just because I have some of my views I don't listen to the brethren or that I criticise them. I have never done so. You will never find a post of me criticizing or judging them in that way. And I love an value all of them. I have learned much from each of them.

Anyway.... Id say we just agree to disagree on the President/Prophet thing. Thank you for the dialogue. I bow out of that particular discussion now. I could add more things and you would add more things but I feel like we will just keep going in circles. Also, I'm tired. lol

Fair enough. I think we do disagree on that. However I would love to see scripturally what you base your opinion on. Or any sort of revelation. Your position baffles me.

There is one thing you said that I wouldn't mind addressing but I don't really know what it is that you don't understand for me to address it. It was the comment I made about the temple.

"This is not opinion. No one automatically rises to a charge by simply being given a calling or participating in a physical ordinance for example. Otherwise everyone who participates in the temple will have walked out having met the Savior, been brought back into the Father's presence and been redeemed from the fall. That is not how it works. An invitation to rise does not mean you have risen." -Me

Then You said, "How so?"

Im not really sure how to address your question. Are you asking me about the temple ceremonies now? Are you asking how the ceremonies teach us about the path back to the Father? I don't know what it is that you don't understand.

I'll do my best here, I'm not sure how this example applied to our conversation. It seems clear that the President of the Church is a prophet from a number of sources, and you brought the endowment into that somehow. I just wasn't sure how what you were saying applied.

[HeirofNumenor]

I feel like we are talking past each other a bit or something. This whole conversation really got started because I said that A President may not be a Prophet and that a Prophet doesn't have to be a President. One is a church office calling and one is a calling given by God. I don't feel this conversation is really getting anywhere and I don't think it will. We clearly see things differently.

Big P vs little p..... Prophet as in THE Prophet(s) (head of Church), vs A prophet (one of many independents that may come along - can deliver a message, but has no authority/stewardship over you).

A prophet is what Moses was crying about wanting all his people to become...

[ajax]

(Honest inquiries, no funny business)

How do those who sat in Moses' seat in ancient Israel fit into all of this?

How do those who sat/sit in Peters' seat fit into all of this?

How is it possible for a people to know who their next prophets will be in the future based on office seniority and who dies first. Doesn't that promote laziness in accepting prophetic messages that may come outside the organization?

[FoxMammaWisdom]

(Honest inquiries, no funny business)

How do those who sat in Moses' seat in ancient Israel fit into all of this?

How do those who sat/sit in Peters' seat fit into all of this?

How is it possible for a people to know who their next prophets will be in the future based on office seniority and who dies first. Doesn't that promote laziness in accepting prophetic messages that may come outside the organization?

:ymapplause:

[Gad]

D&C107:22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

D&C 107:91 And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—

92 Behold, here is wisdom; yea, 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.

If we were wise, the body of the Melchizedek Priesthood would only choose and uphold a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, as our Presiding High Priest.

[FoxMammaWisdom]

Words from a wise friend of mine:

The Role of Prophets is to help us to learn to communicate with God for ourselves, not to replace God in our lives.

[Gad]

Big P vs little p..... Prophet as in THE Prophet(s) (head of Church), vs A prophet (one of many independents that may come along - can deliver a message, but has no authority/stewardship over you).

A prophet is what Moses was crying about wanting all his people to become...

. to me a PROPHET is one who has

1. received his theophany .
2. received his patriarchal priesthood by the word of God.
3. received a commission or commandment to deliver a message.
4. that message is always of repentance, and a true messenger will never place themselves between you and God, but point you to them.

this will be slightly different when a woman receives the same thing, because of the different callings men and women receive, and if you want to understand that I refer you to paperface.


D&C makes it clear the title of Prophet, Seer and Revelator is to be applied to the leaders of the church. I believe they must be sustained as such, and have keys, but I do not believe that makes them such.

when we ordain a young man to the Aaronic priesthood we sustain them in this and give them the keys to the ministering of angels. until they have had angels minister to them, they have not fulfilled their priesthood.

it it equally possible to have that happen with any other priesthood and keys.

the highest form of priesthood, the Holy Order, is obtained by the mouth of God, and no other way.


I fully sustain the 15 men that lead our church as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. I also know that the Lord has Provided for us in this day true Messengers who have the same theopany, commission, message, and Priesthood as the prophets of old. Praise to his Holy Name.

Amen.

[Gad]

D&C 107:1 There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.

“There are three grand orders of priesthood referred to in the Epistle to the Hebrews” (TPJS, p. 322-23; DHC 5: 554-55.)

D&C 107:18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church—

19 To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.

20 The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments.

In the church there are 2 priesthoods. It is by using the keys of those two priesthoods that the heavens are opened, communion is enjoyed and the 3rd Patriarchal priesthood is bestowed. If an Aaronic priesthood holder is never ministered to by Angels then he has not magnified his priesthood authority and his ordination is in vain.

Moroni 7:37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.

38 For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save they shall have faith in his name; wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also; and awful is the state of man, for they are as though there had been no redemption made.

How much more vain is it for Melchizedek Priesthood to have never opened the heavens and communed with Jehovah? We still sing praises the the last man to publicly proclaim his own communion. Priesthood exists for one reason, to reconnect Man to Father. The atonement was suffered for one reason, to bring Man back into His Presence. To proclaim that God given His authority to man without using that power to come to Him is to deny the Holy One of Israel. It is an awful state to trust in the arm of the flesh for it is as if there has been no redemption made.

2 Ne 28:5 And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel; and they say unto the people: Hearken unto us, and hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men;

Seek the truth and you will find yourself in the presence of God. If you have not been in His presence, then you have not found enough truth.

[Gad]

D&C makes it clear the title of Prophet, Seer and Revelator is to be applied to the leaders of the church. I believe they must be sustained as such, and have keys, but I do not believe that makes them such.

It is kind of funny, we don't even get the titles right.

D&C 107:92 Behold, here is wisdom; yea, 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.

We always leave out the "translator" title. I say kind of funny, but since we're going to be judged out of these books maybe I should say it is kind of sad.

[Seek the Truth]

(Honest inquiries, no funny business)

How do those who sat in Moses' seat in ancient Israel fit into all of this?

How do those who sat/sit in Peters' seat fit into all of this?

How is it possible for a people to know who their next prophets will be in the future based on office seniority and who dies first.

The Lord set it up that way.

Doesn't that promote laziness in accepting prophetic messages that may come outside the organization?

I'm not sure how this is a problem, I accept 15 people as prophets, seers and revelators and still accept revelation outside those 15 if I can find it.

[Seek the Truth]

. to me a PROPHET is one who has

1. received his theophany .
2. received his patriarchal priesthood by the word of God.
3. received a commission or commandment to deliver a message.
4. that message is always of repentance, and a true messenger will never place themselves between you and God, but point you to them.

this will be slightly different when a woman receives the same thing, because of the different callings men and women receive, and if you want to understand that I refer you to paperface.


D&C makes it clear the title of Prophet, Seer and Revelator is to be applied to the leaders of the church. I believe they must be sustained as such, and have keys, but I do not believe that makes them such.

]
Why would the D&C have us call them those things if they aren't those things.

when we ordain a young man to the Aaronic priesthood we sustain them in this and give them the keys to the ministering of angels. until they have had angels minister to them, they have not fulfilled their priesthood.

it it equally possible to have that happen with any other priesthood and keys.

I don't see how. D&C 107 100 says God bestows the gifts on the head of the Church, there is no condition applied to that. Also, elsewhere in D&C it says twelve are of equal power. I'm not sure how we can be asked to sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators if they are not.

[Seek the Truth]

In the church there are 2 priesthoods. It is by using the keys of those two priesthoods that the heavens are opened, communion is enjoyed and the 3rd Patriarchal priesthood is bestowed. If an Aaronic priesthood holder is never ministered to by Angels then he has not magnified his priesthood authority and his ordination is in vain.

I'm not sure it is in vain.

How much more vain is it for Melchizedek Priesthood to have never opened the heavens and communed with Jehovah? We still sing praises the the last man to publicly proclaim his own communion. Priesthood exists for one reason, to reconnect Man to Father. The atonement was suffered for one reason, to bring Man back into His Presence. To proclaim that God given His authority to man without using that power to come to Him is to deny the Holy One of Israel. It is an awful state to trust in the arm of the flesh for it is as if there has been no redemption made.

I don't understand this. I believe beyond priesthood we need personal worthiness and faith to come into God's presence, I don't think I or any other can use our priesthood to demand coming into God's presence.

Seek the truth and you will find yourself in the presence of God. If you have not been in His presence, then you have not found enough truth.

No doubt about that. That is certainly my goal.

I am curious though, the overall discussion I am trying to have is to determine if people really believe that people in the 15, the High President in particular, can be called and sustained to those offices and not actually be prophets. And if people do believe that what is the scriptural basis thinking that. My study of the scriptures indicates they have to be prophets to hold those offices.

[Gad]

The scripture says the body of the priesthood chooses their president from among themselves. The church then upholds the men so chosen with their confidence, faith, and prayers. Then the Lord gives us a word of advice on who we'd choose if we were wise. The PHP has a duty to be a prophet, seer, revelator, translator, one like unto Moses, one who has all the gifts of God bestowed on him. The scripture does not say he is those things, only that it is his duty to be such.

The Presiding High Priest has the DUTY TO BE like Moses. This is not a statement of what he is, it is a statement of what he must become to magnify his office. The office doesn't make the man a prophet, seer, translator and revelator. The man has the duty to become those things. Evidently, when Zion is finally established, we'll be able to go back and judge who magnified the calling and who failed to do so.

D&C 64: 38 For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion.
39 And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.

[Seek the Truth]

From what i said ealier:

D&C 107

91 And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—

92 Behold, here is wisdom; yea, 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.

I guess some may find the tenses confusing in parts, but notice he says "to be", not "to hopefully become".

However if you will notice the last bit he says "bestows", not "may bestow", "sometimes bestows", "usually bestows", "occasionally bestows", etc. It's just bestows, and on the head of the church (President).

[AshleyB]

Big P vs little p..... Prophet as in THE Prophet(s) (head of Church), vs A prophet (one of many independents that may come along - can deliver a message, but has no authority/stewardship over you).

A prophet is what Moses was crying about wanting all his people to become...

. to me a PROPHET is one who has

1. received his theophany .
2. received his patriarchal priesthood by the word of God.
3. received a commission or commandment to deliver a message.
4. that message is always of repentance, and a true messenger will never place themselves between you and God, but point you to them.

this will be slightly different when a woman receives the same thing, because of the different callings men and women receive, and if you want to understand that I refer you to paperface.


D&C makes it clear the title of Prophet, Seer and Revelator is to be applied to the leaders of the church. I believe they must be sustained as such, and have keys, but I do not believe that makes them such.

when we ordain a young man to the Aaronic priesthood we sustain them in this and give them the keys to the ministering of angels. until they have had angels minister to them, they have not fulfilled their priesthood.

it it equally possible to have that happen with any other priesthood and keys.

the highest form of priesthood, the Holy Order, is obtained by the mouth of God, and no other way.


I fully sustain the 15 men that lead our church as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. I also know that the Lord has Provided for us in this day true Messengers who have the same theopany, commission, message, and Priesthood as the prophets of old. Praise to his Holy Name.

What Brent said...