Which is a bigger deal? Being a prophet or being an apostle? If you’re like me, you would probably assume that the title “prophet” is higher than “apostle,” but I recently read some interesting information on the history. I was curious to know when we started to call the quorum of the twelve “prophets, seers, and revelators.” The brilliant J. Stapley pointed me to his excellent OP from 2008, including many of the following tidbits.
“In 1835 and in dedication of their new temple to God, the priesthood rose in their various quorums and sustained the authorities of the Church. The Twelve were declared “prophets, seers and revelators.” I’m not sure that we can capture the zeitgeist of 1835, having heard that phrase repeated over and over in our lifetimes; but I believe that this was a great extension of the hand of God to His people.”
Is an Apostle Greater than a Prophet?
When asked if he had seen the Savior, Brigham Young told Susa Young Gates that he had not and didn’t expect to while in the flesh. He also stated:
“I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet…”
This could have been a paraphrase of the scripture in Amos 7: 14-16. But it also appears to be related to the idea that being a “prophet” is a natural gift, possibly even one that is genetically passed from father to son, whereas being an apostle is an office, a call, a position of authority. Being a prophet or having the ability to prophesy was largely seen as a spiritual gift. This is consistent with such scriptures as:
“And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” Acts 2:17
“Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets.” Numbers 11:29
At other times, Brigham Young said:
“I am not going to interpret dreams; for I don’t profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser;”
“I have never particularly desired any man to testify publicly that I am a Prophet; nevertheless, if any man feels joy, in doing this, he shall be blest in it. I have never said that I am not a Prophet; but, if I am not, one thing is certain, I have been very profitable to this people.”
John Taylor explained, in defense of Brigham Young’s statement:
“Many have the gift of seeing through seer stones without the Priesthood at all. He had not this gift naturally yet He was an Apostle & the President of the Church & kingdom of God on the Earth and all the Keys of the Holy Priesthood & of Revelation was sealed upon him & the spirit & power of Revelation was upon him daily.”
Wilford Woodruff who had never heard Brigham Young make this claim said in his defense:
“He is a prophet, I am a prophet, you are, and anybody is a prophet who has the testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy. The Elders of Israel are prophets. A prophet is not so great as an Apostle. Christ has set, in his Church, first, Apostles; they hold the keys of the kingdom of God. Any man who has travelled with President Young knows he is a prophet of God. He has foretold a great many things that have come to pass.”
Jean Calvin, opponent of Mormonism, interpreted Brigham Young’s demurral differently:
“…he indeed modestly says, that he was not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet: why did he say this? To render himself contemptible? By no means though the words apparently have this tendency; but it was to gain for himself more authority; for his extraordinary call gave him greater weight than if he had been brought up from his childhood in the schools of the prophets.”
From a comment in the discussion on the original OP referenced (source not cited beyond the name Josh):
“To Brigham Young, Joseph Smith was never fully gone. Remember that Young is seeing him in dreams, talking to Joseph, receiving guidance, etc. Joseph still presides over the dispensation and is the great prophet, so Brigham is clearly reticent to assume such a mantle. Plus, in the minutes of the Nauvoo showdown with Rigdon, Young uses the term prophet to characterize Rigdon–a charismatic leader without priesthood authority. In contrast to this, Young forwards the Twelve collectively as having authority to lead the church, but he goes on to say that Joseph will never be replaced.”
What is a Prophet?
It’s an interesting idea, that a calling or office (apostle) carries more weight than being a prophet. That goes back to the question of what we mean by “prophet.” There are different interpretations possible, and context probably matters:
- President of the church. This is usually used in the context of missionary work, stating that we have “a prophet” and likening it to ancient prophets who were individual leaders. In this sense, apostles could be viewed as prophets-in-waiting, ready to step in whenever the time comes.
- Anyone who gives a warning, who preaches. General Conference talks often remind us of this definition.
- One who foresees the future or predicts future events, a prognosticator.
From the Bible Study Guide on lds. org:
A person who has been called by and speaks for God. As a messenger of God, a prophet receives commandments, prophecies, and revelations from God. His responsibility is to make known God’s will and true character to mankind and to show the meaning of his dealings with them. A prophet denounces sin and foretells its consequences. He is a preacher of righteousness. On occasion, prophets may be inspired to foretell the future for the benefit of mankind. His primary responsibility, however, is to bear witness of Christ. The President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s prophet on earth today. Members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.
Some of these definitions sound unique to the President of the Church (use of singular) whereas other sound general. The Bible Dictionary definition of prophet includes this:
as a rule a prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost
Sorry, Phil the Groundhog. Looks like you don’t qualify after all. Why was Brigham Young reluctant to take the title of “prophet”? There could be a few reasons:
- Distinguishing between natural spiritual gifts like predicting future events, visions and dreams and interacting with heavenly beings.
- Respect for the unique role Joseph Smith played in the restoration. Historian Michael Quinn also noted that prior to David O. McKay, use of the term “the prophet” invariably referred to Joseph Smith, not to the current President of the Church.
- A belief that “apostle” was a calling or office, and that “prophet” was a general term that didn’t carry specific authority.
- Joseph was Brigham’s ongoing personal intermediary, in the form of visions or other direct inspiration, even after his martyrdom.
From the Journal of Discourses:
“Is [being a prophet] the privilege of every person? It is. Permit me to remark here-this very people called Latter-day Saints have got to be brought to the spot where they will be trained (if they have not been there already,) where they will humble themselves, work righteousness, glorify God, and keep His commandments. If they have not got undivided feelings, they will be chastised until they have them; not only until every one of them shall see for themselves, and prophesy for themselves, have visions to themselves, but be made acquainted with all the principles and laws necessary for them to know, so as to supersede the necessity of anybody teaching them.”
and elsewhere, Brigham Young added:
“Every man and woman may be a Revelator, and have the testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy.”
Natural Prophets vs. Institutional Ones
J. Stapley (in the comments of his post) added another interesting historical note:
“I should also add that Brigham taught that it was the patriarchal right of an Apostle to ordain his sons apostles, regardless if they ever make it into the Quorum of the Twelve. The consequence of this practice is that there were likely very many more apostles outside the Quorum than in it. What is interesting about that is that it seems, in a way, that he replaced the family of natural prophets and seers with the family of institutional prophets and seers.”
The question often arises whether the apostles have seen the savior or not, with a strong belief among many members that they have. Brigham Young’s refusal to make this claim is interesting in light of this. A story shared in that prior post’s discussion by commenter kevinf:
“I once heard the temple recorder of the Salt Lake Temple speak in a fireside one Sunday night, many years ago. He mentioned happening to sit at the same table in the cafeteria at the COB with a newly called apostle, whom he did not identify. In the course of small talk, he (the recorder) made the comment, “I guess that it must be pretty special having a Road to Damascus kind of experience”, with all that implies.
The apostle answered him, “If that were what it took to become an apostle, then there would literally be thousands of them.””
Prophetic Gifts Genetic?
Another shift that took place during these early years was from familial ordination to institutional ordination. In Brigham’s day it was customary for an apostle to ordain his own sons as apostles, even when they were very young; this is certainly not the case today, although Jeff Spector has noted the nepotism among church leadership.
As we know, Joseph also had ordained his son Joseph Smith III who went on to become President of the RLDS branch of the church. Something that was news to me is that Brigham longed for David Hyrum and Joseph Smith III to join the church in the west and to take up their apostleship. [1]
Institutional vs. Charismatic
Another comment mentions the tension between charismatic authority and institutional authority, describing a shift from Joseph’s charismatic authority to Brigham’s institutional authority.
Recently, church leaders excommunicated two individuals on the basis that they were charismatic leaders, one of whom claimed to have seen the savior. The fact that they had garnered a following and felt that church leaders were in apostasy seems consistent with this tension between charismatic prophets and organizational ones.
I am also reminded of Sidney Rigdon’s show-down during the succession crisis in which he famously refused to attend his excommunication trial after which he, in turn, likewise excommunicated the members of the Twelve. As Brigham Young pointed out, Rigdon was a charismatic prophet.
Do Special Witnesses Need to See Christ?
So why is there such a strong belief among members that the apostles have all seen the savior? Commenter CRC notes:
One interesting bit of church history trivia that is seldom talked about is that when Oliver Cowdery was called by revelation to help pick and ordain the 12 apostles, he told them that their calling as apostles would not be “complete” until the Savior appeared to them and personally ordains them.
From my tour of Kirtland, there was a lot of focus on personal visions of the Savior, including in the School of the Prophets that was held in the upper story of the Newel K. Whitney store. Our guide gave us a handout with nine different locations in the area where historical documents recorded that the savior had been seen by church members in the early days of the restoration.
Conclusion
It’s been theorized elsewhere that the types of prophetic gifts that Joseph claimed like seeing and translating were only necessary for his role as the one who ushered in the restoration. Those who carry the mantle today don’t need more than the normal types of spiritual gifts that all of us have access to: faith, personal revelation, the gift of the holy ghost. What sets them apart is simply the calling itself, not any personal gifts or experiences that come with that.
What do you think?
- Is being a natural prophet important to the role of apostle? If not, does it matter if members think it’s necessary?
- Are the apostles natural or charismatic prophets or institutional prophets? Which is greater?
- Are there church members who are natural prophets or charismatic prophets today? Are there women who have the gift of prophecy? What is the role of a natural prophet in the church?
Discuss.
[1] From the biography of David Hyrum From Mission to Madness.
Wheat & Tares 
When we call members of Q15 Prophets Seers and Revelators the title doesn’t imply Administrators which is actually most of their job, it implies via conflation (the church’s secret sauce) that they are *at least* equivlant to natural charismatic prophets which is highly unlikely judging by their infrequent and often trivial fruits and their outright blatant errors (see ban on blacks). But natural charismatic prophets are NOT created by some legalistic ritual they are created by God himself so it’s a big mistake to conflate the two.
Regarding Acts 2:17, last Sunday I enjoyed being in the presence of many Prophets Seers and Revelators and experiencing their bountiful fruits but attending a charismatic Christian church and mixing with their congragation as they prayed over one another. No one treated them like religious celeberties or acted like revelation or healing is rare. The meeting was spiritually filling, not boringly slow spiritual prospecting like ours.
Legalistic office and God’s power are two distinctly different things, it’s a mistake to conflate them. Authorised is a comforting concept for those who don’t get out much but those who do know there are many many Prophets Seers and Revelators who have never experienced any official LDS ordanance and guess what about half of them are women! There are probably some sexually active gays who are Prophets Seers and Revelators too, get over it!
I liked the part of your comments where you talk about if the apostles have seen Christ.David O McKay was asked after he became the resident of the church, if he had ever seen Christ and he said no. When I look at how the decisions are made at the highest level of the church, I have come to the conclusion that they are not meeting with Christ but run the church by inspiration just as any bishopric would. It is also interesting to note that it was not a general rule to call the president of the church the “prophet” from B Young(as you mentioned) to David O McKay and that since him it is standard practice. More of a marketing thing for our missionaries to go forth and tell the world we have a “living prophet”.
Resident should be president in my previous comments.
Interesting OP. Brigham Young talking about not being a prophet or seeing Jesus reminds me a bit of Paul writing about how charity is the most important gift of the spirit. It was a way of saying, you shouldn’t follow someone because of their charismatic gifts, you should follow them because of their message of Christ. Reading between the lines, he was responding to critics who wanted to follow the doctrine of the Jerusalem apostles instead of Paul’s doctrine, and pointed to the miracles the apostles were performing as proof of their authority. Paul had to identify a different source of authority for himself. I see Brigham as doing that. And in that same tradition the prophets, seers, and revelators today don’t claim authority from any charismatic gifts, but rather from an ordination within an institution with the proper authority.
Of course, you can’t apply the current conception of prophet back onto the scriptural narratives of prophets without mangling the text, which is how you end up with so many different definitions of prophet to try to make it consistent. Today prophet just means president of the church, and apostle means one of the top 15 leaders of the church. They are organizational titles.
Also relevant is the Hugh B. Brown talk, Profile of a Prophet. He lists a number of characteristics of a true prophet, that are clearly designed to match Joseph Smith. These include, boldly declaring that God has spoken to him, speak in the name of the Lord, accurately predict future events, perform superhuman feats, and suffer rejection or persecution in his time. But it is not the profile of a prophet you would write if you wanted to cover all of the subsequent presidents of the church.
Re #5 Interesting!
The decision-making procedure, Hugh B. Brown explained, generally worked like this:
So apparently he didn’t think of the men he worked with as true prophets!
Like Joel pointed out, the authority of current leaders is based on the institution having proper authority. They are institutional prophets. It’s like with Samuel the Lamanite in the Book of Mormon – clearly a prophet, but not the person people went to for baptism after they were converted. He was not the guy that had the institutional authority (which, of course, is why CES teachers get uncomfortable with Alma the Elder giving himself institutional authority, but I digress).
Yes, women can have the gift of prophecy, as long as they don’t claim priesthood office and they make sure to defer to institutional authority. The church won’t deny that women in the OT prophesied, they just get irked when anyone declares the women prophesied in any official church capacity. General Auxiliary leaders being classified as prophetesses because they share fervent testimonies of Christ is fine. Suggesting that any women holds a rank of prophet equivalent to how we assign it to apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators… not so much.
Institutional prophets (apostles) always trump charismatic prophets in our current beliefs. Going back to the Hiram Page incident in August 1830, the only person to receive trustworthy revelation for the church will be someone recognized within the institution as a valid vessel.
Yes, women can have the gift of prophecy, as long as they don’t claim priesthood office and they make sure to defer to institutional authority.
The church is a closed society in which women are only *allowed* to govern *under* the authority of men. Authority has less to do with God or gospel than it does with maintaining order within that society. As a result women and children of gays and for awhile blacks actually lose authority to exercise their otherwise God given powers by becoming a member! Outside the church all three groups would find that their authority to use their God given power is directly related to their personal ability to do so rather than some calling or station they occupy.
One thing to consider is that Lehi was a charismatic or visionary prophet with no institutional authority. Isaiah was his contemporary who is recognized as authoritative.
It seems that institutional authority follows charismatic prophets and not the other way around, in fact institutional authority expels more charismatic prophets than they promote. It’s all about rules and authority and mostly it’s about who’s in charge. Elder Oaks argues there is no up or down in the church but watch what happens if you decide to sit in his red seat for a session of GC!
Howard trolling again.
Trolling Genhy? My comments are on topic. Is yours?
The idea that authority and prophecy are in competition with one another is a total mistake. It’s like saying that a lake is in competition with its shoreline. Authority marks the social boundaries or scope of the prophetic gift whether it is actually present or not. Ideally, all people would have the prophetic gift within their own domain of authority.
What I find interesting about the OP is BY’s ideas concerning Apostleship. What does it means to be an apostle outside of the 15? What are the boundaries of their stewardship? These are interesting questions that I do not have any firm answer to. I am, however, pretty uncomfortable with a person having stewardship over people who have not been made aware of or sustained them in this position.
My impression is that an apostle simply has the authority to continue the fullness of the priesthood in the case that the church falls away. This of Alma the younger or Lehi. As for Lehi, however, it’s not totally clear to what extent he tried to extend his visionary tendencies beyond the scope of his own household. A compromise between only preaching to his own household, and fully commanding the city of Jerusalem would be that he was inviting rather than commanding others to join his household in leaving.
When prophesy is given, it is simply up to the receiver to either receive it or reject it. THAT determines stewardship and boundry not ward or stake or church boundries or church rules! Those boundries only play a theoretical role within the closed society of the LDS church by pretending to be competing (via the subconscious threat of church discipline or appealing to shame or guilt) or the to members when really they are not!
For example they do not compel non-members living with ward boundries to accept church revelation and they do not compel church members to accept the ban on blacks or Proposition 8 or the new abominable ban on children of gays when such policies are clearly morally bankrupt. So it is clear that true stewardship comes from the receiver up not from the top down. So what exactly is the meaning of these official stewardships and boundaries? In truth stewardships come from the members not from the hierarchy and geographical boundaries are largely meaningless to prophecy, they are simply there to define congregations and to let you know who your ecclesiastical boss is. In other words they are there to enforce top down authority.
If that’s the case, Howard, then why did JS not organize a church immediately following the 1st vision? What about after Moroni’s visit? Why wait until the laying on of hands?
Jeff G,
Please tie your question more clearly to my comment.
I guess my problem is that I don’t understand your comment. (I think your mind was working faster than your fingers – a sin of which I am almost always guilty.)
Based on what you’ve said before – your position gets pretty close to a priesthood of all believers. There is, however, an unavoidable ambiguity in this position. The liberal version would be that each person is able to read the scriptures and receive revelation for themselves and *nobody else*. The democratic version would be that all persons are able to read the scriptures and receive revelation for *everybody else*. Under the first, no person’s revelation is able to correct anybody else’s. Under the second, there is no way of adjudicating different people’s revelations. Both of these model must, therefore, fall back on human reason in order to regulate social action that pretends to embody scripture and revelation.
These models stand in stark contrast to the largely Catholic model (also taken up, I claim, by the LDS church) in which only certain people are able to receive revelation to certain other people. The D&C equivalent would be the repeated assertions that only one explicitly designated person can receive certain revelations for the church. The same can be said for any stewardship – for which geography is merely a convenient correlate. This, I suggest, is the point of an organized church with ordinances and ordinations – the reason why the 1st vision and the BoM were insufficient. After all, it wasn’t more than a year before “alternate voices” arose within the church in which Hiram Page pretended to receive revelation for other people independent of his authority. In this way, priesthood does not trump revelation, but structures and channels it. Authority is to prophecy as bones are to muscles. To see them as competing with one another is entirely confused.
I interpreted your comment as rejecting this third model of priesthood in favor of (some mix of?) the former two models. I’m just having a hard time seeing how you can reject the third model without falling back into the problems of the first two.
I’m not constrained by the LDS rules you seem to buy into, instead I speak from personal experience. I can receive ANY revelation God chooses to give me. ANY. If that revelation could be applied to you and YOU *choose* to receive it then I would have received a revelation for you. The point is IF God sends it to us we are by definition thereby authorized to receive it but that doesn’t mean you or anyone else have to accept it.
LDS revelatory stewardship is about order within THAT institution, not necessarily any other organization or group. There is not just one way to do things. The LDS stewardship rules are about organization and hierarchy, they have nothing at all to do with accessing God’s power, many non-members can do that.
To me it appears that Joseph was being directed to organize the church step-by-step before the “laying on of hands” and he was clearly receiving revelation and visions and translating the BoM without the almighty institutional priesthood that would come several years later! With regard to stewardship it appears that at least some people around him believed him and believed his prophecies (in other words THEY gave him some level stewardship over them) so they helped him do these things prior to any institutional authority or institutional priesthood.
“Alternate voices” would be a very good reason to establish order but today it is often argued that LDS institutional hierarchal stewardship and institutional priesthood are necessary just to receive revelation. This is obviously not true as Joseph received revelation long before institutional anything.
So please clearly define and explain the mystical secret sauce of institutional stewardship and LDS institutional priesthood without mental gymnastics or conflation.
“If that revelation could be applied to you and YOU *choose* to receive it then I would have received a revelation for you. The point is IF God sends it to us we are by definition thereby authorized to receive it but that doesn’t mean you or anyone else have to accept it.”
You’re dodging the issue a bit since none of the three models takes choice away from a prophet’s audience. Just because only one person can receive revelation on some subject, this does not authorize them to force others to follow it. The question is whether somebody is *justified* is freely disobeying.
What is clear is that you’ve gone over to some liberal/democratic model with its two major problems:
1- It seriously dilutes the prophetic prerogative. There is a world of difference between “Thus saith the Lord, thou shalt not X!” and “God told me that we shouldn’t X. What did He tell you?” In both cases, the audience is free to disobey, but in the latter case the audience seems justified in disobeying.
2- It provides no mechanism for adjudicating between conflicting revelations. Since we have no reason to expect (or desire!) that all personal revelations agree with or confirm one another within any moderately sized community, this just means that no such community can ever be led as a collective whole by revelation.
That said, if you’ll please clearly define and explain what “mental gymnastics or conflation” are, then I’d be happy to avoid them. Prediction: Here comes the duck!
Jeff,
If you want me to take your comments seriously don’t hide behind the definition of mental gymnastics or conflation and then accuse me of ducking when you just did! I left you with a trick question, one that so far none of Q15 seem to be able to answer. You’re a smart guy but I strongly suspect there is no acceptable apologetic answer.
What do you think?
• Is being a natural prophet important to the role of apostle? If not, does it matter if members think it’s necessary?
• Are the apostles natural or charismatic prophets or institutional prophets? Which is greater?
• Are there church members who are natural prophets or charismatic prophets today? Are there women who have the gift of prophecy? What is the role of a natural prophet in the church?
Discuss.
Is being a natural prophet important to the role of apostle?
Num.11: 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!
Is being a natural prophet important to the role of apostle? If not, does it matter if members think it’s necessary?
It kind of appears that God would make us all prophets if we would live that way.
And with that we would prophecy and teach those things according to His will.
A natural prophet makes no sense to me. We were given a plan where we could become like God. What’s the big deal with becoming like a prophet? I mean when are we supposed to become like God, Apostles and Prophets may have done more in the preexistence but we all have that same goal. In the Church we all have the gift of the Holy Ghost and can come to, and understand, truth and beat the prophets to it.
Are the apostles natural or charismatic prophets or institutional prophets? Which is greater?
Two answers:
A. Ask God.
B. Check their DNA and/or their geneology.
Are there women who have the gift of prophecy?
Of course there are.
What is the role of a natural prophet in the church?
To answer that, tell yourself what your role is. You might have to work at it. I can’t say I’ve ever done that.
I must have missed the question. Too much mental gymnastics and conflation. (See how unengaging this response is?)
Since you seem unable or unwilling to draw a clear distinction between “mental gymnastics” and complex reasoning or between “conflation” and simply understanding words differently, I guess we are left with little more than mud slinging.
As for OP: the only solution to the underdetermined morality of fully liberal charisma and the overdetermined morality of fully democratic charisma, is an authoritative institution of some kind. One option would be a rationalistic legalism in which those who are most able to wield rational laws in their favor are at the helm. The other option is hierarchical voluntarism in which the typically private will/inspiration of designated individuals is at the helm.
Thus, there are three options:
1) Abandon order and consistency by falling into the chaos of universal charisma.
2) Abandon charisma in favor of universal public reason and bureaucracy.
3) Abandon universality in favor of hierarchical charisma.
Good night Jeff, mud slinging doesn’t intrest me. I look forward to engaging your substantial mind on another thread.
Howard,
I know you think that I’m just playing games…. and I guess I am a little bit. But there is a very serious point that I have yet to be able to get across to you over the past couple years.
I do not think I have been engaging in mental gymnastics or word play. If I am guilty of such things, it has been done unintentionally, I assure you. I think that my position might be somewhat complicated, nuanced and a little bit foreign to our modern intuitions, but honest and quite coherent nonetheless. (Judging from his engaging comments, I think Andrew S can partially vouch for this.) Thus, when I ask you to detail what I should avoid in order to prevent nuance from sliding into equivocation I am being completely honest. What do I have to do in order to actually engage you rather than receive some flippant response? Without such information, your protests against obfuscation on my part look more like the laments of incomprehension, if not mere moral indignation on your part.
Perhaps you could expose any specific contradictions or specific non-sequiturs that I have fallen prey to? Where, *specifically*, do I trade in rational discourse for the word magic of empty rhetoric? While such a discussion would be a little “meta” and perhaps a bit of a threadjack, it would definitely not be mud slinging.
Charismatic prophets in the OT were considered more authoritative than anyone within the technical institution. The priesthood heirarchy held no right to revelation – only in the case of Samuel did you really get the highest institutional authority combined with prophetic revelation. Moses was considered a higher authority than Aaron even though Aaron was the high priest (highest ranking institutional authority).
Isaiah was incredibly influential because of his position in relation to the monarchy, not out of any relation to the church institution. A prophetic call by the divine council (Isaiah and Lehi as examples) was unrelated to priesthood office. Samuel and Ezekial are the only two OT prophets I can think of who were also priests. Elijah, Elisha, Deborah, Huldah, and 90% of OT prophets were charismatic prophets. The bigger names (such as those listed) were made famous by political institutional ties, not religious institutional ties. You don’t get heads of religious institutions trumping charismatic prophets till NT and later BoM.
Jeff G,
I do get that you are attempting to present a rare perspective that supports the church but it appears it is still under construction and you are using blogs to test it. For quite a while it appeared to deliberately jettisoned logic or at least down grade logic in favor of what? Lately the what appears to be Authority and the how is you (meaning me and apparently anyone else who opposes) and I are speaking different languages or have such differing view points that is isn’t even reconcilable. Well I can see why, after attempting to answer the internet challenge and after the ban on blacks debacle Authority is about all the TM material the church has left to sell! But Authority without conflation is honestly nothing more than organization aimed at obedience, it isn’t God’s power, at best it’s God’s authorization but I know many non-members who have God’s authorization as well. So who cares?
Your attempts at a unifying theory of apologetics seem to continually end in failure. That shouldn’t be a surprise since you are attempting to reconcile the unreconcilable.
Where we seem to personally clash is when I ask a clear question like I did above: …please clearly define and explain the mystical secret sauce of institutional stewardship and LDS institutional priesthood without mental gymnastics or conflation. When I do this you immediately move away from the question and rely on straw men, obscuration or ad hominem and then you want to correct my use of ad hominem instead of addressing the argument content. I have tired of this circle yet continue to respect your intelligance so I typically withdraw and try again on a different thread.
It is definitely an institutional role today. When was the last prophecy anyway? What have they seen or revealed? Makes one think.
Howard, you already know the apologetic explanation. The concept of dispensations is covered quite heavily in Sunday classes and CES courses. It is understood that dispensations are begun by charismatic prophets who then receive institutional authority by the laying on of hands. They then have priesthood authority to organize the institution however they are instructed (Joseph Smith can be seen as following the pattern laid by Moses and NT church leaders). This is why it was so important for the explanation that Moses had appropriate priesthood authority given to him by his father-in-law, and that the NT apostles received appropriate priesthood authority by Christ, Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration.
Once the dispensation is under way, then other charismatic prophets are only considered authoritative insofar as they agree with the institutional authority established by the dispensation founder. This view works for the NT and our current dispensation, but it doesn’t really work for Moses’ dispensation. We don’t know enough of other dispensations to test the theory. The difficulties with the Mosaic dispensation lead to all sorts of justification about higher Melchizedek authority tied to the prophetic role justifying permission to offer sacrifices and/or BoM temple practices outside the understood institutional authority of the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.
Both NT and 19th century leaders had enough difficulty with “Alternate Voices” interference that they felt it necessary to discourage charismatic prophecy on behalf of the church outside of the institution. Apologetic responses would use the difficulties of organizing the church on a large scale, of the necessity of centralized leadership, of correlated teachings and beliefs to ensure that members didn’t fall into heresy or apostasy. They’d point to the NT and BoM to show examples of church leaders repeatedly going about correcting doctrine among members and weeding out false beliefs or teachings that had been brought in (either by those looking to deceive or by those who’d been honestly deceived by false heavenly messengers).
This dispensation was initiated by a charismatic prophet, but that charismatic prophet revealed the theology and rules that now make it impossible for other charismatic prophets to overrule institutional church leaders.
Mary Ann,
There isn’t much value in apologetics that don’t work, is there? In fact there isn’t much value in apologetics at all given they start with a conclusion (the church is right) and then select and bend evidence to fit! Their only real value is to put the choir back to sleep; move along, there is nothing to see here.
Thanks for explaining but my understanding is that Jeff isn’t attempting to argue the apologetics you outlined above rather he has been looking (or pretending to look) for a philosophy that offers plausible deniability for ingoring formatable rational arguments against and supporting the church’s position on (just about) anything. Super Apologetics if you will! That’s why I called it a unifying theory of apologetics
“I ask a clear question like I did above: …please clearly define and explain the mystical secret sauce of institutional stewardship and LDS institutional priesthood without mental gymnastics or conflation.”
If this is your idea of a “clear question” or an argument then I guess there is nothing more to say.
What is unclear about the question Jeff?
Brother Jake Explains: Prophets are Awesome
Mystical secret sauce? Really? What does that even refer to?
Mystical – of or relating to mystics or religious mysticism.
Religious Mysticism – a religion or religious belief based on union or communion with a deity, or divine being.
Secret Sauce – a special feature or technique kept secret (proprietary) by an organization and regarded as being the chief factor in its success.
Proprietary – of or relating to an owner or ownership in this case by an organization.
Yes. I too am able to look up the definitions of words. And yet your questions relevance to the issue at hand is still beyond all comprehension. The worst part is that you pretend like it’s my fault.
If anybody else can figure out what Howard’s deep and all important question is, please enlighten me.
Let me help you Jeff.
Let’s use LDS priesthood as an example. I don’t think there is anything mystical about LDS priesthood that cannot also be found outside the church as well. I think the LDS Secret Sauce is largely conflation.
For example the LDS priesthood is often described as the *power and authority to act in God’s name* and that sounds like something very special until you come to realize that many non-members including women and children of gay parents are able to access and use God’s power. So if we subtract power from power plus authority we’re left with authority.
What’s so special about authority? IF God provides his power to a woman outside the church isn’t he also giving her the authority to use it? So what is unique about LDS priesthood power and authority? It’s stewardship within the LDS community if it’s anything. But as I suggested in #14 top down stewardship is actually an illusion true stewardship comes from the receiver up not from the top down!
However, if you want to use God’s power publicly *within* the LDS community you must be a man who holds the LDS priesthood. So that makes the LDS priesthood little more than a license!
I say little more because I believe LDS priesthood is also a formal invitation to motivate men to step up to the plate and engage God within their congergations when they otherwise wouldn’t. Perhaps this is the most important aspect of LDS priesthood and compared to the use of God’s power outside the LDS church.
“IF God provides his power to a woman outside the church isn’t he also giving her the authority to use it?”
This is your problem. No, it doesn’t. Authority is a social or moral category while power is not. Authority is the moral claim to have others follow your direction. There is a certain amount of paternalism built into authority (the very meaning of “stewardship”) that is not included in power.
Even if authority is little more than a license – licenses are still very important! There is a reason why we license certain people to do certain things and not others. Most importantly, licenses always have to do with regulating social interactions. They are little, if anything to do with empowerment in any individualistic sense.
One does not need a license to invite others to do anything. This is what is lacking in your bottom-up “suggestion”. Authority/sovereignty/stewardship is the license to command others, not merely invite them. This distinction is easily seen in Hobbes’ social contract in which people are invited to sign a social contract, thus allowing themselves to be commanded by the sovereign. Authority is the source of a unity which invitations by themselves could never achieve.
Time is hard to come by right now. I just took a few minutes to read over the post and comments.
It appears to be more of the same–liberal Mormon stuff.
One thought for those who might be interested. President Harold B. Lee reported: “A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.”
Dr. John A. Widtsoe, former member of the Quorum of the Twelve said:
“The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations. …
“It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.”
Happy New Year to all!
As for whether priesthood confers power in an individualistic sense that is in addition to that involving social interactions (I think this is more what you’re getting at), I don’t have strong feelings either way. For instance, do we need the power of the priesthood to perform miracles? Clearly we do not NEED it. This doesn’t mean that it doesn’t help, though.
Where I am a little more sure, is that miracles seem to largely depend upon personal righteousness, and personal righteousness is a very social category. Thus, our relationship to the priesthood in our lives – depending upon our context and opportunity – does function as a precondition for the power of God. Thus, by maintaining a righteous relationship to priesthood authority, we thereby provide the conditions for the power of God to work in our individual lives.
Authority/sovereignty/stewardship is the license to command others not merely invite them.
Hmm, command others! Well the question is WHO is doing the commanding? God cannot command without a licensed hierarchy? Really? Isn’t it man not God who needs the trappings of authority in order to command? Btw I didn’t see much commanding going in the charismatic Christian congregation but I did see a lot of prophecy going on there. Kinda of inverse to the LDS experience.
When God provides his power he controls it’s use, misuse cannot take place because he can and does withholds it. So IF God provides you with his power and you use it he has authorized it use.
Yes Jared death to liberals! That’s the LDS way isn’t it?
Howard-
There you go again, putting words in my mouth.
I just wish liberals could acquire a testimony.
Sure Ronnie that would solve everything, wouldn’t it?
“When God provides his power he controls it’s use, misuse cannot take place because he can and does withholds it. So IF God provides you with his power and you use it he has authorized it use.”
This is probably the rub. Here are two questions that illustrate my push back against you:
1) Does one’s righteousness have anything at all to do with whether God provides him/her with His power?
2) Does how one relates to God’s duly anointed representatives have anything at all to do with one’s righteousness?
I think Mormon doctrine strongly answer “Yes!” to both questions. You almost surely answer “no” to (2) and I’m not sure how you feel about (1). That’s fine if you want to believe that, but don’t let any LDS member think that your views represent Mormon doctrine.
1) No. If it did why was Saul invited to become Paul?
2) n/a because #1 is no and also because you may well be also one of God’s anointed.
The problem with your questions is that they assume some substance to the concept of authority which you haven’t yet established yet in spite of repeated requests for it. So the premise of your questions is both unfounded and circular. Once again, please demonstrate the missing substance!
Really? I’m surprised.
Nobody claims that personal righteousness is all there is to it, but you really deny that personal righteousness has anything at all to do with it? You think that personal righteousness does make the 2nd comforter or healings more likely in the least?
If you do, the answer is “yes”. If not, then you must understand the scriptures VERY differently than I do. If anything, your reading is far more Calvinist than it is Mormon.
Maybe Jeff & Howard should get a room.
Jared, a testimony of what exactly? I know many liberals who have a testimony, just not of Fox News.
It is still not clear to me whether our leadership can or do claim to be speaking for God? Most members believe when the leaders speak it is as if the Lord has spoken, do our leaders claim this or do they just allow that belief to continue?
True Blue,
You assume that a sharp distinction can be drawn between the two. After all, when a lawyer speaks for their client is it as if their client had spoken? But the whole point of getting the lawyer is because they say things that the client would not have actually said!
What about those who have been given power of attorney? The whole idea of having been authorized to represent or “speak for” another person prevents any sharp distinction between the two.
Jared, David O. McKay and James E. Faust were both political liberals. You want to assume they didn’t have testimonies of the gospel?
Jeff, it is a slippery slope to tie personal righteousness with greater responsibility in the priesthood. That idea supports the fallacy that you can determine a person’s level of righteousness by their church position. That thinking is also problematic when someone in authority is found out to be hiding some pretty heavy sins – if their authority is tied to their personal righteousness (and they were sinning in a jaw-dropping manner), does that mean any actions they did with that church authority are null and void?
The priesthood gives license to administer ordinances and govern the affairs of the church. While worthiness is a consideration in extending church callings, the efficacy of the ordinances and blessings administered by leaders is much more heavily tied to the personal righteousness of the recipient, not the one officiating in the ordinance.
Mary Ann,
“Jeff, it is a slippery slope to tie personal righteousness with greater responsibility in the priesthood. That idea supports the fallacy that you can determine a person’s level of righteousness by their church position.”
You’ve misread me on two levels. First, I never said anything at all about one’s level of responsibility within the priesthood organization – only one’s relationship to the Lord’s authorized representatives. Second, you follow Howard in assuming that I think our relationship to the priesthood organization is the entire story such that nothing else is relevant, when such is obviously not the case.
Howard says that our moral relationships to God’s authorized representatives are absolutely, 100% irrelevant to the power of prophecy – a cog that turns nothing and can thus be safely discarded. Thus, all I need is the smallest 1% of relevance between the two to prove him wrong. Mormon doctrine, I claim, quite clearly gives us at least this much. How much more is open for (a very different) debate.
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Is this not a revelation being received by an unrighteous man?
Nobody is denying that, Howard.
I fully grant that it is possible for a particular unrighteous individual to receive revelations. What you are saying is that righteousness has no bearing at all on the *likelihood* of this happening, all other things being held equal.
To repeat (for a 3rd time): Righteousness is not the ONLY factor, but it is still a factor all the same. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
Thank you for finally conceding that righteousness is NOT required to receive revelation.
I never said it was “required”, only that it is relevant. Again, losing my mind!
If we have two groups of 1,000,000 random people that are no different from each other in any sense except that the 2nd group (we’ll call it “Zion”) is measurably more righteous than the 1st (we’ll call it “Babylon”), then we have every reason in the world to think that the Zion will receive more revelations, converse with more angels, and produce more scripture than Babylon.
Jeff
The contradiction you are attempting to reconcile, may be an improper definition of authority.
Your definition (and that of the brethren)seems in line with the
kings of the gentiles, not Christ’s definition (Like 22).
Furthermore,no power or authority can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the Priesthood (D&C 121).
So it would seem that inviting is God’s way, and commanding is the way of earthly kings.
Howard is right.
You are trying to fit a square earthly peg in God’s round hole.
Bravo Howard.
PS before you appeal to all the commandments throughout the scriptures, I would cite God’s words to us about giving Joseph “commandments” according to the weakness and the manner of their language (D&C 1).
Commandments being a weak substitution for persuasion and love and patience and kindness.
Nice try with section 121. Your misinterpretation is all too common:
http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2014/11/amen-to-the-priesthood-or-the-authority-of-that-man/3723/#more-3723
I meant to link to that post, not some comment in its thread.
#51 Mary Ann wrote responding to my #39:
Jared, David O. McKay and James E. Faust were both political liberals. You want to assume they didn’t have testimonies of the gospel?
#48 hawkgrrrl wrote responding to my #39
Jared, a testimony of what exactly? I know many liberals who have a testimony, just not of Fox News.
————————
The word “liberal” as defined at google:
“Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”
When I wrote #39 I was thinking about the above meaning of the word liberal.
A liberal Mormon, as I used the term has nothing to do with politics.
A liberal Mormon is one who doesn’t have a “testimony” of the foundational claims of Mormonism that translates into a consistent pattern of living. They may be active in the church but they fail to be consistently active in the gospel.
Laman and Lemuel provide examples of liberal behavior. They just didn’t get it. They had moments where they appeared to have testimonies but soon returned to the ways of the world.
Other examples include Alma and the four sons of Mosiah. They were raised in the church by prophets, yet they fought against the church. However, once converted they were steadfast.
Some who read my comment in #39 assumed I was belittling and putting liberal Mormons down. I am just observing and telling as I see it.
Someone even portrayed my comments as “death to the liberals”.
Those who have followed the churches recent policy on same sex households have noted the furor some have exhibited. They accuse church leaders of being hateful, vindictive, and callous. Not following the Savior’s example. Disregarding the tender feelings of children and being insensitive to the needs of families. They go on and on about foolish old men being out of touch with the realities of the day.
Then on Sunday, some these same people attend church and partake of the sacrament. They appear to be Mormon, but are in a deep sleep spiritually and cannot have the same kinds of manifestations of the Spirit as those who have paid the price to gain the companionship of the Holy Ghost.
I sincerely hope they will at some point make the commitment to find a testimony they never had or lost somewhere along the way.
I’ll close by saying that I feel a kinship and love with those who frequent the bloggernacle, and W&T in particular.
This is how I sincerely feel.
Jeff G writes:
The fact that what a priesthood leaders says seems patently absurd does not make it any less authoritative.
Authoritative – to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.
Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith:
Jared: You defined liberal as “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.” That would mean that anyone who is willing to repent and change their lives or to ameliorate their circumstances or communities is also liberal. The definition doesn’t have anything to do with one’s testimony, though. Testimony doesn’t equate to “traditional values” (which is usually aligned with social conservativism) or every evangelical would qualify as having a testimony, which they obviously do not.
“Laman and Lemuel provide examples of liberal behavior. They just didn’t get it. They had moments where they appeared to have testimonies but soon returned to the ways of the world.” Au contraire. If you read more closely, you will see that they were the least liberal in that family. Their dad was the liberal, running off into a new life and leaving their traditions behind. According to tradition, Laman was the preeminent son, not Nephi, yet Nephi usurps his place in the family. That’s not traditional. By tradition, they had no rights to the brass plates. Those had fallen to Laban based on tradition. They took them to effect social change by preserving their culture in writing to colonize a new world. If they had been conservative, they would have died in Jerusalem, and Laman wouldn’t have lost his rightful inheritance. Instead his “liberal” dad ran off and left all the eldest son’s inheritance behind and then told him to just let it all go and defer to his younger brother who hadn’t lost anything.
“Other examples include Alma and the four sons of Mosiah. They were raised in the church by prophets, yet they fought against the church. However, once converted they were steadfast.” They were rebellious, certainly. Then they quit rebelling. I don’t see them as liberal or conservative.
“Those who have followed the churches recent policy on same sex households . . . accuse church leaders of being hateful, vindictive, and callous. . . . Then on Sunday, some these same people attend church and partake of the sacrament. They appear to be Mormon, but are in a deep sleep spiritually and cannot have the same kinds of manifestations of the Spirit as those who have paid the price to gain the companionship of the Holy Ghost.” Here’s another view on this. There are plenty of church members who have a testimony of the restoration, who work hard to maintain the companionship of the holy ghost, and who very sincerely see this as a human mistake church leaders have made. Because they are forgiving and have a testimony of the gospel, they still attend church and try to support gay people the best they can, following Jesus’ example despite this terrible mistake, trusting that right will eventually prevail and that further revelation will come. They focus on what they do know (that the gospel is good) and set aside what they don’t know (how good men can create a policy with such impossible consequences for families and for emerging gay youths), hoping for a better day to come.
Conversely, there are plenty of church members who consider this new policy sufficient justification to criticize those who are hurt by the policy as a way to make themselves feel better. It is always easy to see the so-called sins of those who sin differently than you do.
Would you really rather that those who don’t agree with the policy quit coming to church? Plenty have already obliged you if that’s the case. Too many if you ask me.
“I’ll close by saying that I feel a kinship and love with those who frequent the bloggernacle, and W&T in particular.” I appreciate this.
This is how I sincerely feel.
Jared, I wonder if this is how many conservative members see liberal members.
As a liberal member, the reason I am active is because I belive the foundational claims of the church, and have lived the Gospel, and held a TR continually for nearly 50 years.
Examples I would give of liberals would be the Saviour and Joseph Smith.
My problem with the recent treatment of gays, is that I can not see how it fits with the gospel of Christ.
The only way I can explain it is to compare it to other decisions from the past, racism, opposition to birth control, etc, some of which are now admitted to be the conservative culture of the time.
I think it requires at least as much testimony of the fundamentals of the Gospel to be active when others like yourself see you as less because you understand the Gospel differently.
New
propagandapersuasion poster reported to be in the COB aimed at employees: Align With The BrethrenThe authority of the President of the Church to speak for the church comes from his sustaining in office as President of the Church — not from his sustained office as prophet, seer, and revelator. Same for the counselors in the First Presidency. They are functioning in the priesthood office of high priest, not in the apostleship.
hawkgrrrl & True Blue-
Below is what I used in #39 as the definition of a liberal Mormon.
President Harold B. Lee reported: “A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.”
Dr. John A. Widtsoe, former member of the Quorum of the Twelve said:
“The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations. …
“It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.”
I appreciate what both of you wrote. Great insights.
I have a liberal size, I think everyone does.
But just a hawkgrrrl and True Blue wrote, we stay because of the testimony that resides and/or burns within.
True blue
The homosexual way of living is deadly to the body and spirit. Christ was not able to personally minister in the spirit world to those who had defiled themselves in the flesh. What exactly do you think defiled themselves in the flesh means?