A Prophet Defined

[Anonymous]

In his journal, based upon conversations he gave that day, Joseph Smith writes the following, tagged in the book with the label, “A Prophet Defined”:

On January 1, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote:

If any person should ask me if I were a prophet, I should not deny it, as that would give me the lie; for, according to John, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy; therefore, if I profess to be a witness of teacher, and have not the spirit of prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus, I must be a false witness; but if I be a true teacher and witness, I must possess the spirit of prophecy, and that constitutes a prophet; and any man who says he is a teacher or preacher of righteousness, and denies the spirit of prophecy, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

(History of the Church, v5 p215)

Joseph Smith is describing a technical definition of a “Prophet” as being one who has the spirit of prophecy which in Revelation 19:10 is equated with the “Testimony of Jesus Christ”. So, when someone, by spiritual confirmation, understands that Jesus is the Christ, and testifies of that in testimony, then by definition, that person is a “Prophet”. This may not be a satisfying definition to most church members, who view the term “prophet” as being restricted to 15 men, and “the prophet” as exclusively meaning the head of the church. As well, we find many, many people in the church who revere Joseph Smith as if he was “a Prophet of God”, in a way that separates him from the rest of humanity.

I wonder if we cannot demystify this term a bit. To testify that Jesus is the Christ is to proclaim something that cannot be known by logic. When I say “I know that Jesus is the Christ”, there is no testable process that allows me to make this claim — i do not know it in any epistemological sense of proof. I have a feeling of certainty, either something I’ve learned to say that I’m comfortable with it and believe it fully to the point of no doubt, or I’ve had a manifest personal spiritual witness whereby the statement “Jesus is the Christ” is true to me. While the former process — that of repeating something so often that you believe it — seems to be a bit of self-deception; the latter process — that of a personal witness of some sort has a type of validity: It is possible that such knowledge is beyond normal grasp.

Turning to Paul:

Paul to the Corinthians, First Epistle 13:9-10 wrote:

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect (greek:complete) is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

This is an interesting observation, perhaps, about the deficiencies of both knowledge and prophecy. The way it is expressed, Paul differentiates between the part which we ‘know’, and the part that we ‘prophesy’ about. From the statement, it appears that these are two different sets of information, the combination of which still lends itself to partial knowledge. What’s more interesting about Paul’s statement is that “Prophecy” is “not knowledge”, because he separates the two. A complete knowledge needs “no part knowing part prophesying”, because it is now all ‘knowledge’ (he later uses the term “know as I am known”.

This fits very well with Alma’s “Faith is not a perfect (complete) knowledge of things”. That which we declare in faith, then, is that which we propose to be true, feel (through the spirit of prophecy) is true, but explicitly realize that it might not be true because we don’t know. Most people probably will have a problem with the notion that faith and prophecy have an implicit acknowledgement that we don’t know, because that sounds a lot like “doubt”. Terms like “doubt” and “skepticism” are precisely accurate, but because they are loaded with negative connotation here, probably don’t apply. I prefer to say, we “hope” that such things are true. We “believe” them, but in so doing, we explicitly recognize that we don’t know. it’s simply a fact — an attribute of faith — that we don’t know.

To me, Prophecy is a type of inspired, faith-based speculation on that which we do not know. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 13:8 that prophecies can fail. As well, everything Joseph Smith taught about revelation in D&C 8 and 9 indicates a deliberative process that involves “mind and heart” and not necessarily direct dictation. It seems useful to me to recognize that Prophets propose ideas on that which is unknown or unknowable — they speculate, and based upon their personal spiritual witness, ‘feel’ that their speculation represents some divine truth. But, it’s an inspired guess, and it could be wrong.

In sum, the definitions here are (1) A Prophet is someone who has an inspired witness — a testimony — of Jesus the Christ, and (2) “Prophecy” is a type of inspired speculation about things for which there is no knowledge. In defining terms this way, the idea that a prophet is some specially designated perfect person is not at all required to be a prophet — it humanizes the role of prophet. As well, it also helps us understand why so many of the early “prophets” taught some pretty wild ideas. They were speculating/prophesying, according to the portion of spirit given to them. And, according to Section 50 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the word of the spirit has to be both spoken and received by the spirit: to accept logically a speculation given by the spirit simply doesn’t work.

In faith (spirit of prophecy, in s sense), prophets speak their minds and hearts. In faith (spirit of prophecy, again), we listen and evaluate what is said. If we get no witness, then that thing isn’t prophecy to us, and should be disregarded.

[Anonymous]

Good words, wayfarer.

Joseph also found that this created a problem. Everyone prophesying different things made it harder for him to keep order. Therefore, priesthood authority became an important part of prophecy. Brigham Young took that even further and things have evolved to today’s teachings like Elder Oaks that states Priesthood Revelation and Personal Revelation should not come in conflict.

We seem to avoid using prophecy in the church much anymore. We are more comfortable with personal revelation, or personal testimony to state the things you are including in the true definition of prophecy.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Good words, wayfarer.

Joseph also found that this created a problem. Everyone prophesying different things made it harder for him to keep order. Therefore, priesthood authority became an important part of prophecy. Brigham Young took that even further and things have evolved to today’s teachings like Elder Oaks that states Priesthood Revelation and Personal Revelation should not come in conflict.

We seem to avoid using prophecy in the church much anymore. We are more comfortable with personal revelation, or personal testimony to state the things you are including in the true definition of prophecy.

So we define terms differently — i can work with that. But the main term “Prophet”, as applies to how joseph smith operated, and the fact that he and BY could shoot out a lot of stuff and nothing like that has happened since, has to be understood in the context of how they understood revelation and prophecy. They were quite different. Joseph Smith called his stuff revelation, had it written down, and turned into canon — smart guy. Brigham Young didn’t see himself as a prophet, but rather, a ‘yankee guesser’ — and the reality was that so was Joseph Smith. But Brigham simply spouted one propositional statement after another as if it were doctrine and true. No revelation — just what he declared. Blacks, polygamy, polyandry, adam-god, word of wisdom=commandment, blood atonement… he said it — it was so. so let it be written (but not really), so let it be done.

Then John Taylor in the 1886 revelation — bona fide — that polygamy would go into hiding and there would be those selected to continue the principle…. whoah.

Yeah, well, all of this just created a lot of prophetic speculation. A lot of it.

I would love to see the church teach truth as it evolved in the brethren over time. But that wouldn’t be faith promoting. that would be the not-so-useful and inconveninent truths.

So what’s changed is correlation: agreed upon ‘teaching’ or ‘church doctrine’. The truth is that it isn’t truth — it is simply ‘what is taught’. And as long as we agree to teach it and not deviate in meetings, we can believe pretty much anything we want. I can work with this model, except where the agreed upon teaching is harmful.

[Anonymous]

Do you think there was anything different with prophecy from Joseph Smith…or was it just that he wrote it down and canonized it?

We seem to view the D&C as Christ literally speaking to Joseph. The words were God’s words. Hence, the careful study and cross-referencing by word in our lessons.

When we give a blessing to someone, sometimes we feel those words are “inspired”…but we don’t really look at inspiration the same as the revelations and prophecies in the D&C.

What is the difference between prophecy, revelation, and inspiration?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Do you think there was anything different with prophecy from Joseph Smith…or was it just that he wrote it down and canonized it?

nothing different, except that he wrote it down and canonized it.

Heber13 wrote:

We seem to view the D&C as Christ literally speaking to Joseph. The words were God’s words. Hence, the careful study and cross-referencing by word in our lessons.

exactly. yet by those same words it says the following:

D&C 8:2-3 wrote:

Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.

D&C 10:8 wrote:

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

Now, How the freaking hades does someone go from “feel that it is right” after “study it out in your mind” to any concept that scripture is dictation? What we have here is a culturally cultivated urban legend that Jesus Christ is in the Holy of Holies and somehow the Prophet consults with him on each and every issue and Jesus Christ tells him in person what to do.

You are absolutely correct — LDS think that the books of scripture are dictated. Look at Ted Callister’s lovely statement about there is no middle ground on the Book of Mormon: “It claims to be the word of God—every sentence, every verse, every page.” Even Moroni didn’t make this claim. It drives me nuts.

Heber13 wrote:

When we give a blessing to someone, sometimes we feel those words are “inspired”…but we don’t really look at inspiration the same as the revelations and prophecies in the D&C.

What is the difference between prophecy, revelation, and inspiration?

on the last point, absolutely nothing at all — three words for the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Would it help to acknowledge that even very orthodox Jews acknowledge to me that even the most holy Hebrew prophet Moses was guided by the spirit of god to write it(not a seperate sprit as we believe). That even they acknowledge thier only written book to be manifest not in person to Moses but by “the spirit of god”. So it makes no sense to me why heavenly father would “change that up” some thousands of years latter and say from now on it will be officially dictated in person.

[Anonymous]

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

Would it help to acknowledge that even very orthodox Jews acknowledge to me that even the most holy Hebrew prophet Moses was guided by the spirit of god to write it(not a seperate sprit as we believe). That even they acknowledge thier only written book to be manifest not in person to Moses but by “the spirit of god”. So it makes no sense to me why heavenly father would “change that up” some thousands of years latter and say from now on it will be officially dictated in person.

That is a really excellent point — an excellent piece of evidence about “how it works”. Do you have a bona-fide reference for that concept? (not disbelieving you, it’s just that when we get the CFR – call for reference – on that, we should have it…

thanks.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

Would it help to acknowledge that even very orthodox Jews acknowledge to me that even the most holy Hebrew prophet Moses was guided by the spirit of god to write it(not a seperate sprit as we believe). That even they acknowledge thier only written book to be manifest not in person to Moses but by “the spirit of god”. So it makes no sense to me why heavenly father would “change that up” some thousands of years latter and say from now on it will be officially dictated in person.

That is a really excellent point — an excellent piece of evidence about “how it works”. Do you have a bona-fide reference for that concept? (not disbelieving you, it’s just that when we get the CFR – call for reference – on that, we should have it…

thanks.

continuing…

and what’s further interesting about the “holy prophet moses”, is that most of his words were additions by later “prophets” or scribes: J, E, P, D, R…, and yet attributed to the holy prophet moses. Dang, that sounds so familiar….

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer, I will see what I can do. As you probably know they especially the ultra Orthdox are very secretive when it comes to sharing certain information like oral Torah, temple rituals and certain ideas with a “goy”. However since I have known them for a long time and openly shared our religion and went above and beyond in helping the, keep thier kosher laws with respect they have shared information with me that they haven’t with any other non “goy” including letting me into thier house(I am the only “goy” allowed I thier house) and watching high ceremonies and prayers , discussions ans such. It’s been quite weird for me to explain to the missionaries why because of this I refuse to walk with them into any “Jewish neighborhoods”. I do acknowledge that not everything in the 5 books of Moses is written as I see such a thing”Atributing works from less common to more revered rabbi for better “acceptance”. However you know that from a scholarly study which is strictly forbidden to read the Torah in a scholarly way in Orthdox Judaism. To even to question a high Rabbi about certain things could result in Excommunication. There is little trust to communities outside thier own, thus the use of official but not legally binding Jewish courts to not involve “the official “goy” authorities. However in discussions I was surprised a few had openly acknowledged to me the oral traditions passed down to Moses while others felt more conservative and felt it was inappropriate to even talk about it holding that everything before Moses was given to him by gods voice and everything after he was born was written down by gods spirit”not the holy ghost that we believe” since god doesn’t have a form to them and is already everywhere at once. I will try to ask for more info(this is the high holidays). I’m not sure if any ultra orthadox rabbi would post on the Internet for reference because of easy viewing of a “goy”. But I’ll ask if there is s reference site I can visit and link for you(it wouldn’t be made by anyone without being a apostate for revealing classified information to a “goy”. But their are conserve orthadox Jews that sometimes do(labaled as liberals to Hasidic Jews “ultra orthadox” Jews ? Sound familiar? Temple ceremonies, garments etc. In my area the Rabbi follow the teachings of

” Menachem Mendel Schneerson”. Read up on him if you don’t and it sounds ( almost) like the way ultra orthadox LDS talk about the prophet but don’t quite take it as far as some Lubavitch do. My friends don’t and can’t stand the praising of him and see it as idol worship, sound familiar?

[Anonymous]

There is no “calling” in the Church of “prophet”. Apostles are sustained as “prophets, seers and revelators”, but there is NOTHING in our theology that limits those roles exclusively to them. I like that – and I don’t like that we as a people tend not to understand that.

I don’t have a problem seeing “The Prophet” as “the highest ranking prophet within an organization intended to be filled with prophets”.

[Author]

Posts