- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Before you go thinking I’ve really gone off the deep end, I’m getting this assertion from Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R McConkie. I know that the Church has stopped publishing that work, but I read it thoroughly when I was newly baptized and greedily assimilating everything I could about the Mormon faith. In a section on prophets, I remember McConkie saying that a prophet is someone who receives revelation for a stewardship that is theirs. Therefore, Thomas S Monson is a Prophet of the Church. The Bishop is a prophet to the Ward, and you and I are prophets to our own personal affairs. Note, the difference between capital P and small p prophets, however. The Prophet of the church is large P, and all others are small “p”. Also, if you go broadcasting you’re a prophet to your friends and neighbours, expect to be sanctioned.
However, I think this definition by Bruce R McConkie puts the whole idea of a prophet in perspective. With this definition, the pressure is off for Thomas S. Monson in my view. He doesn’t have to be perfect anymore. My own decisions as my role of prophet to my personal affairs aren’t always perfect, and acting on inspiration doesn’t always work out. I’ve been known to be wrong even when acting on inspiration. Or how I’ve acted on deep inspiration and then found the situation blow up in my face. Perhaps its the same for the Prophet in the Church at times, given that fact that he too is imperfect?
Also, because I’m a prophet to my own personal affairs, everything he says isn’t always the right advice for me personally. It needs to be filtered through my own role as prophet to my own personal affairs.
Now, there are also roles as seer and revelator that I don’t think McConkie said fall under the same banner as prophet — that’s another discussion.
Amen to that SD. It brings a whole new meaning to singing the song “We Thank Thee of God for a Prophet” while at the same time contemplating that we are the prophet in our life.
I am talking in Sacrament Meeting in a week on receiving personal revelation AND sustaining leaders – how those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. I am going to use this general idea as one of my central points. Brian Johnston wrote:Amen to that SD.
It brings a whole new meaning to singing the song “We Thank Thee of God for a Prophet” while at the same time contemplating that we are the prophet in our life.
Now I’m excited to sing that hymn and to interpret it throught the lens of the small “p” definition of prophet — thanks for the idea!!!
I’m really cautious about giving credence to the statement bishops are prophets of a ward. Quickly, w/o too many details, I have seen this phrase go VERY bad when put to practice. I’ve seen even a very cosmopolitan ward go badly even to this day the entire stake has had more than one GA have to come down and whoop some on this particular stake. BTW this is not a MorCor stake either and has had some very weird dynastic BS, and frankly apostatsy that it’s Northern sister city, which is very liberal I might add, kind of smirks when this stake is mentioned by those who know. So yes the idea when looked upon in a certain light it can be a good thing. With as many disagreements I have with much of the church as a whole, I do see a need for the bretheren to take care of business when things get too far.
Ray, I wish I could hear your talk. It would be cool to be in your ward and/or stake. SilentDawning wrote:In a section on prophets, I remember McConkie saying that a prophet is someone who receives revelation for a stewardship that is theirs. Therefore, Thomas S Monson is a Prophet of the Church. The Bishop is a prophet to the Ward, and you and I are prophets to our own personal affairs. Note, the difference between capital P and small p prophets, however. The Prophet of the church is large P, and all others are small “p”. Also, if you go broadcasting you’re a prophet to your friends and neighbours, expect to be sanctioned.
That’s an interesting take, imo. I don’t throw the title “prophet” around either for various reasons, lol. I’ve long known that we are each entitled to receive revelation for our personal stewardship as you say, and I’ve been told this by more than one official (bishop, SP, the mishies and so forth) so there’s nothing controversial about it. I think it’s just that people don’t stop to really consider the ramifications and responsibilities that this doctrine, which is a true one, carries with it.
For instance, I have long had a testimony of the Principle (Celestial Marriage), but I consider this a revelation only for my self and don’t try to “proselytize” it or expect others to live up to this standard. Each one must gain a testimony of Gospel principles for oneself.
I guess I’m beyond worrying about deep ends. I’m a prophet. “We thank Thee, O God, we are prophets, with guidance in these latter days.
We thank Thee thou sendest the gospel and light’nest our minds with its rays.”
That’s how I sing it. Honestly.
Tom
Quote:light’nest our minds with its rays
Why, thank you, Tom.
😆 This is an interesting question, one that perplexes me a bit. I agree 100% that each of us is entitled to our own revelation and we are each prophets. However, in my experience, church doctrine is “if my personal revelation differs with the direction handed down from “the brethren”, then I had better get in line”. In other words, revelation is received at the top level and we are entitled more to “confirmation” rather than differing “revelation”. Many would argue that we do not have a right to filter when it comes to many doctrines in the church. For example (maybe a poor one, but here goes), a woman in my ward went to the temple and received revelation/inspiration/direction/whatever that she should divorce her husband. All I heard from my bishop in a casual conversation regarding the situation was this same mantra regarding revelation…and the insinuation she was, therefore, “wrong” or “deceived”. I feel strongly that it is not my place, nor is it my desire to judge any individual for the decisions they make or the way they come to those decisions. Who am I to say what the future holds or that things will not work out perfectly despite the pain and anguish this particular woman is putting her children and husband through currently? All I can do is love her…I may not agree but I certainly respect her for having the courage to stand up for her beliefs in the face of some serious social pressure.
And I am committed to being authentic and true to myself as I go forward in my relationship with authority in the church. Right or wrong, this is the only way I have been able to acheive a level of peace and fulfillment in staying. This above all: to thine own self be true.
inbeing wrote:I agree 100% that each of us is entitled to our own revelation and we are each prophets. However, in my experience, church doctrine is “if my personal revelation differs with the direction handed down from “the brethren”, then I had better get in line”. In other words, revelation is received at the top level and we are entitled more to “confirmation” rather than differing “revelation”. Many would argue that we do not have a right to filter when it comes to many doctrines in the church.
“It is my providence to define what the doctrine is. It is your providence to repeat what I say, or keep your mouth shut.” Bruce R. McConkie
Fortunately, the leadership has relaxed their hard-core stance and we don’t have this being taught from the pulpit like we did in the 80’s — But yeah, I agree with what you’re saying — that’s how 85% of the church members would look at.
The Bishop was wrong. Period. End of story. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own decisions, and we can’t blame church leaders if they are wrong and we follow any more than we can say, “The devil made me do it.”
I made that exact point in my last talk, and the Bishop of the ward where I was speaking thanked me afterward and said he agrees 100%. Most Bishops would agree, since the vast majority don’t want that kind of power.
I’d go further, I think all humans have some prophetic ability. I think it’s interesting that God gave the boy Samuel revelation for Eli, who was the high priest of the Church. And Nephi did receive a revelation from God to break a commandment, by killing Laban. (Nephi was not the head of the Church at this time–it was personal revelation.)
Just two examples that don’t fit the current mold.
Also, I think it’s confusing to say “everyone is a prophet.” It might be true on a technicality, but it doesn’t seem to be what the scriptures mean when they use the word. I actually think the LDS definition of “prophet,” has changed recently (eg. PMG vs. older manuals), and is still changing.
Actually, allquieton, the idea that everyone can be a prophet is central to all of our ancient scripture . OT prophets came from nowhere and suddenly were preaching to the people and the kings; Lehi is a great example of someone who had a vision and preached to the people of Jerusalem – who probably rejected him just as much for his lack of institutional standing as for his doom and gloom, repent or be destroyed message. Samuel, the Lamanite: How was he called? When there is an established “church” (NT and D&C, for example), “prophet” seems to become a position and calling; when there is not such a “church”, prophet is a description of one’s activities and words.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.