GP Chapter 9: Prophets of God

[Anonymous]

So…let’s discuss what the church teaches, and how we might discuss it as members. I don’t know if this discussion would happen in your ward, but regardless, here we are…let’s discuss.

Quote:

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

Many people live in darkness, unsure of God’s will. They believe that the heavens are closed and that people must face the world’s perils alone. How fortunate are the Latter-day Saints! We know that God communicates to the Church through His prophet. With grateful hearts, Saints the world over sing the hymn, “We thank thee, O God, for a prophet to guide us in these latter days” (Hymns, no. 19).

The way this is setup, it may for some people connote very black and white definitions or conclusions.

1) God does NOTHING except through a prophet. Taken to a literal extreme, he won’t talk to me, only a prophet. Wait…that isn’t what we mean or teach, is it? God will speak to me…and do lots of things apart from talking to prophets…so what is this statement meant to be teaching?

2) LDS are blessed to have a prophet to guide us. Some people in the world have none, have no belief in ongoing revelation, and think we’re all here on our own without any God in our lives. Those people may benefit from hearing missionary discussions that teach that God does still speak to us today, and we can find that in our lives. I have, but also accept he may intervene way less than I hoped. But there is also a section omitted in this correlated material…and that is that many other religions feel god’s presence and involvement in their lives and do not believe the heavens are closed. We should not take this message to an extreme to suppose God only speaks to LDS people and not others. We should join our spiritual brothers and sisters, in the church and out of the church, that have the message that God speaks to us still. I see very nebulous terms being thrown around about God speaking and what it is we are talking about. It causes us to draw our own conclusions about it. That is good. We should be drawing our own conclusions based on our faith and experiences.

We have a choice (a cafeteria approach perhaps) that allows us to see what is in the correlated lesson material, and go deeper to see meanings behind these things that are not in conflict with correlated lessons material, but better explain the material with our personal experience. We can stay in the church and believe these things.

Conjunctive faith allows for multiple interpretations to exist and all be equally valued.

Next in the lesson material…

Quote:

Latter-day Saints sustain the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles as prophets. However, when we speak of “the prophet of the Church,” we mean the President of the Church, who is President of the high priesthood.

I can accept this. This actually helps me in many areas. Because Dallin H Oaks, for example, is not the prophet.

You may peruse the lesson material here.

Do you see some of these statements problematic? If so, which?

Can you agree with them, even if you think you may be thinking of them differently than others do? If so…is that OK to allow different viewpoints on the same principles?

Join the discussion. Share your views.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

You may peruse the lesson material here

I did, and it’s shocking to me how little of it I can identify with anymore. So I’m looking forward to hearing others’ thoughts .

Has there really not been enough time or energy or money or whatever it actually takes to remove sentences like “the prophet will never lead the church astray” from the manuals? Seems like a set-up for some pointless GD discussions.

I remember Terryl Givens in an interview saying he likes that the prophet doesn’t insert himself, make dogmatic statements, or speak in detail to many issues – that he basically says, “Be nice.” But what didn’t get acknowledged in his comment, I think, is that the others peform that function. Maybe it’s meant to be a pushme-pullyou kind of thing…I don’t know. It’s a fuzzy line that we all – leaders and members – keep blurry for our own purposes.

I think I don’t spend enough time listening to the simple “Be good” message.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

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

A prophet wasn’t a prophet before god revealed his secret to him, once god revealed his secret the person became a prophet. God does at least one thing that’s not through a prophet, at a minimum god chooses the first prophet, otherwise do you think that you could ever, through all eternity, find out the generation where prophets began to be?

With that in mind, if god reveals to me I’m a prophet.

I feel like a big part of Jesus’ mission was to remove the barrier between god and man… and right now I’m not talking about death and sin, I’m talking about removing the “barrier” of other people acting as middlemen between god and man. Now it’s time for me to butcher history and make stuff up. I believe at the time of Jesus that access became more and more exclusive as you got closer and closer to the Holy of Holies, the most sacred place on earth. There was the Court of the Gentiles where foreigners were allowed access, closer in there was the Court of Women where only pure Israelites could enter, closer in there was the Court of the Israelites where only Israelite men could enter, closer in there was the Court of Priests where only the priests could enter, and at the center of sacredness there was the Holy of Holies which one person could enter. One person. Then Jesus died, the veil was rent, and now every man, woman, and child can have equal access to the divine, the end.

And then we came back 1800 years later and restored some of that. That’s what stinks about restoration movements, it restores the “good” along with the “bad.” We have our court of the gentiles, it’s a basketball court where ring ceremonies are held. We have our court of women, probably don’t need to elaborate there. We have made some strides with the court of the Israelites and Priests, now it’s not exclusive to one family. We have made some strides with the Holy of Holies as well. There’s still work to do but I do feel like we are working outward to make more and more people equal as time goes on. Plus we openly invite all to participate, which is a big change.

So yeah, once we’re all on equal footing, if we are all prophets (under some definition or other), then god could get even more done.

As a side question, did god intend for there to be prophets in the post Jesus world?

Tangents nibbler, tangents!

Quote:

Many people live in darkness, unsure of God’s will. They believe that the heavens are closed and that people must face the world’s perils alone. How fortunate are the Latter-day Saints! We know that God communicates to the Church through His prophet. With grateful hearts, Saints the world over sing the hymn, “We thank thee, O God, for a prophet to guide us in these latter days” (Hymns, no. 19).

And again we thank thee, o god, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen. :angel:

Another thing I repeat often; I wonder what makes a prophet a prophet, god calling someone to be a prophet or the sustained faith of the people that hold someone up as a prophet (or something else entirely)? Who creates a prophet, god or the people? In either scenario god might be inclined to reveal his secret, the message would get to people in either scenario. Granted you’ve got to be careful. Marshall Applewhite was a prophet to many people.

[Anonymous]

I keep waiting for the promised new adult curriculum. I’m not sure what the hold up is. The GP manual has changed very little since I first encountered it in 1981 as a new convert.

Anyway, I, too, find that I relate to little of this idea anymore. I will say that a modern prophet was a sticking point for me as an investigator, and when I attempted to discuss my thoughts with members I didn’t get very satisfying answers (basically it was “why wouldn’t there be?”). I suppose I put the prophet on the proverbial shelf during my more orthodox black and white years. I was never convinced all the prophets and apostles had seen Christ, and I am now more convinced than ever that none of them have. I did like GBH and I do like TSM (although I didn’t always). I don’t believe they are necessarily “God’s mouthpieces” any more than anyone else, but I do like Pres. Monson’s focus on loving each other – he literally talks about that every conference.

So more to the points of the lesson:

1. Prophets are God’s representatives on the Earth. Maybe. It has always been interesting to me that God’s representative on Earth is part of a minority religion, often ignored by or unknown to the vast majority (anciently and in modern times). I’m OK with the president of the church as the duly authorized leader of the church and “president of the high priesthood” as it relates to administrative duties. I don’t fully buy into much else in this section, and I certainly am not part of the “we” who “know that God communicates to the Church through His prophet.” I don’t think we’re any more fortunate than Catholics, who have a leader with a very similar role. Teaching truth, witnessing of Christ, and so forth are part of that role, as they are part of the role of any religious leader and I’m fine with that. I do find the section about the “various stations in life” interesting and untrue – there hasn’t been a “young” one since BY, nor are there any farmers or unschooled ones in modern times.

2. Through the ages God has called prophets to lead mankind. Again maybe, and partly for the same reason above – he’s part of a minority religion. It’s difficult to “lead mankind” from that position. I think it’s interesting that this section starts with “There have been prophets on the earth since the days of Adam.” Hmm, then what about this “great apostasy” the church is so intent on sometimes? There’s really no substance at all in this section.

3. We have a living prophet on the Earth today. I sort of covered this in the intro to this post. I will say I have had trouble with Wilford Woodruff’s statement for some time. For one thing, he was trying to solidify his power during a significant period of unrest in the church because of ending polygamy. “The prophet can’t lead you astray because the prophet said so” doesn’t cut it for me and I don’t actually see any scriptural back up for it (other than the prophets we do know about never had – there may be some we don’t know about). Further, the version of God I believe in has a Prime Directive – He will never interfere with the agency/choice of any individual. Never. I hold this idea as truth because it explains so many things – child abuse, suicide, war, the Holocaust, and many, many more. I do not think the Lord would move the prophet out of his place, however I am grateful that the council of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency has to approve all major changes and I think that’s the safeguard (God given or not).

4. We should sustain the Lord’s prophet. OK, as long as we’re using the same definition of sustain. If I prayed, I’d pray for him. I hear his words in GC and I use them in my talks (because he talks about love so much and all my talks are about love). If I thought he had inspired counsel I’d follow it. It’s interesting to me how it’s reiterated at the end of this section that the prophet will never lead us astray. Got it.

5. Great blessings follow obedience to the Prophet. I’m not big on the whole blessings idea. I don’t believe church members are any more blessed than anyone else, and by some people’s definition of blessed I know some pretty blessed atheists. I feel good when I love or help my neighbor, I think most people do regardless of how religious they are or aren’t. If that’s a blessing, great. I’m not all that crazy about the temple and don’t care if I ever go back, frankly. It just doesn’t do much for me. (Pres. Monson mentions temples quite often, that’s why I bring it up.) Family history is likewise, I’ve never caught the bug, my family is not close, I seriously couldn’t care less. I suppose anything one finds “good” can bring “blessings” if that’s what they think. As a side note here, I think this idea of blessings by obedience generally ignores grace and the atonement.

No, we would probably not have this conversation in my ward, although bits and pieces might be able to come out under some circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

” When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking (see D&C 1:38).”

I am not a big fan of this at all. I believe the prophet is very in tune with the spirit but I just can’t get on board with the statement that everything that comes out of his mouth is directly from God.

I also believe that any person that tries to have a relationship with God can have one no matter what their religion is, so saying that everyone else who doesn’t have our prophet has to live in darkness just isn’t right to me. It seems very disrespectful of other beliefs.

It is so hard for me because I think President Monson is a great man but I just have issues, in general, with the “follow the prophet” message.

This whole lesson is really a sore subject for me right now so I probably better stop while I’m ahead.

[Anonymous]

This particular type of lesson is what makes me get up and walk out of SS.

[Anonymous]

As I have thought about this a bit more, I realized that I don’t believe any human speaks for God.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

As I have thought about this a bit more, I realized that I don’t believe any human speaks for God.

There. Someone said it.

There is a huge difference between earnestly and humbly seeking to know the mind and will of God…and declaring oneself or one’s church the exclusive and virtually infallible mouthpiece of God. Get me away from that.

I think a prophet should write his/her inspirations on the stone, brass, gold, parchment, paper, screen…and then let the power and persuasiveness of those words do what they will to touch and convince people. It’s the ideas that need authority in the modern mind, I think, not the person saying them.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

As I have thought about this a bit more, I realized that I don’t believe any human speaks for God.

There. Someone said it.

There is a huge difference between earnestly and humbly seeking to know the mind and will of God…and declaring oneself or one’s church the exclusive and virtually infallible mouthpiece of God. Get me away from that.

I think a prophet should write his/her inspirations on the stone, brass, gold, parchment, paper, screen…and then let the power and persuasiveness of those words do what they will to touch and convince people. It’s the ideas that need authority in the modern mind, I think, not the person saying them.

That sounds like what the Community of Christ (former RLDS) seems to do.

[Anonymous]

amateurparent wrote:

This particular type of lesson is what makes me get up and walk out of SS.

I wonder how many people feel that way, and therefore….wonder if comments or teachers should frame things in ways that keep people in the class, allowing for different views.

I think there is a high level general statement thrown out (like “the Lord will do nothing but reveal secrets to prophets”) then we jump to minutiae “SSM policy must be god’s literal words to us”.

I am just getting a feeling members jump that chasm too quickly.

The policy change wasn’t written by TSM.

I just think this deserves some thinking through on each issue. Not blanket statements.

Prophets can be helpful. God has used them. I would not be typing this message to any of you right now without prophets.

But, I want to help my ward be the kind of ward where people stay and talk, even if I respect and understand those who leave.

I think the ship can start turning on what exactly prophets are for, and perhaps as mentioned, these 1981 manuals can be updated.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

amateurparent wrote:

I just think this deserves some thinking through on each issue. Not blanket statements.

Prophets can be helpful. God has used them. I would not be typing this message to any of you right now without prophets.

But, I want to help my ward be the kind of ward where people stay and talk, even if I respect and understand those who leave.

I think the ship can start turning on what exactly prophets are for, and perhaps as mentioned, these 1981 manuals can be updated.

I agree. Let’s have real discussions. Like if a teacher would asked, “Which prophet ended the North American slave trade?” – we would have an interesting discussion. We could agree that God’s will was done there, but how did it get done?

[Anonymous]

I nearly always try to help shift the focus to the Bible Dictionary definition of revelation, which broadens the definition greatly to include, potentially, everyone.

I also have been known to comment that I LOVE the fact that prophets are not infallible and that on-going revelation changes even what previous prophets have believed and taught – since that gives me hope that I also can continue to learn and grow and find “further light and knowledge” about things I don’t understand AND things I believe I understand already. I say that if prophets can be wrong about some things, it helps me remember to be humble and not convinced of my own beliefs to the extent that I become unable to change.

[Anonymous]

So, has Thomas S Monson done anything that would make the statement “lead us astray” a false statement?

[Anonymous]

I think the SSM policy could easily fall into that category. Sure he didn’t pen it but he was in a position to put the kibosh on it… well maybe not him but some small minority of the Q15.

If the issue is whether it leads people astray, I see people use the SSM policy as justification for drawing lines between themselves and the gay communiy. Much can and has been said on the subject but for now I’ll leave it at: 35 years from now how will the SSM policy be viewed by the rank and file? As leading people toward love and unity or as something that belongs in the same category as the priesthood ban?

[Anonymous]

That is an extremely difficult call. We are talking about a LONG understanding that has been overwhelmingly supported in all major religions. It also is a core issue in many countries where the Church is trying to gain missionary permission and traction.

I know what I believe, but I absolutely understand the opposing views and am not ready to say the policy is a case of leading people astray. I might think it is not leading people closer, but I can’t say it is leading people further, either.

I think that is an important distinction, even as I know how little comfort that gives to those most directly impacted by it.

[Author]

Posts