Sustaining the Church Leaders as Prophets, and etc.

[Anonymous]

When President Monson became church leader I felt it important to gain a testimony of him as a prophet. I prayed and was surprised not to be given such a testimony. In fact, I may have felt the Spirit telling me, no, he isn’t, but if I did, I blocked that out. I just remember that my answer troubled me (but I doubt a simple heavenly silence would have, only a “no” would have). Since I couldn’t understand my answer at the time, I dropped the matter and went on with life.

Now the Spirit has led me to see a lot of the errors in the church today and I have been wondering about this issue. I have not been to the temple for quite some time because I felt I shouldn’t go if I couldn’t answer all the questions as they were intended to be answered. I have pondered and prayed many times about the status of the church leaders before God. Though I feel no desire to judge them, they are the church leaders and I am asked by the church to sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators, which I have decided I cannot do since I have not had that knowledge revealed to me by God.

The issue is not pressing since I went in to the bishop for a temple recommend interview last Sunday and told him of my dilemma. Because he is in the middle of tithing settlement season, he asked me to come back in a couple of weeks to discuss the issue at length. He is a kind bishop, but I can’t help feeling a little worried that I am going to feel pressured to just go ahead and accept the leaders as prophets and etc. whether or not I receive heavenly validation. I would really like to come to some resolution before then.

I would love to know how some of you feel about this issue. I have no problem whatsoever of believing this is the Lord’s church and that the leaders are called by Him as leaders for this church. I don’t believe this automatically makes them prophets or anything else.

I am not overly concerned about going to the temple. I went to the interview simply because my recommend just expired. I feel that I have access to the fullness of the Spirit no matter where I am. I am more concerned about what to do about my newfound beliefs and how they relate to the church. My main purpose is to bring others to Christ. I have dedicated myself to the church and to helping the members come unto Christ. But how to accomplish this goal, I am not sure. Do I be bold or try to fit in? I am walking the line right now and just not sure which way to go or how to proceed.

[Anonymous]

I’ve always felt that God calls prophets and church members call leaders (church presidents included). If the early church had voted to not sustain JS as prophet, I don’t think God would have realized some mistake on his part and picked someone else.

I guess I would honestly research what a Prophet is….what a Revelator is….and what constitutes a Seer.

If the current folks meet those descriptions, then sustain them.

If not…

[Anonymous]

my thoughts only.

I see President Monson as the Prophet. To be a prophet one must prophesy. While I don’t suggest he receives revelations constantly, I see him as the one whom if the Lord gives a revelation to the world, it will be through him. That is enough for me to see him as the prophet. That in essence he holds the keys and can only reveal what God chooses to reveal. That said I think we also have to take into account that Post Christ prophet is a different function then pre Christ prophet. We sometimes want to make them seem the same. I see President Monson in the same way I see Peter (or whoever your facts say was the head apostle).

The new testament shows the apostles as very human, disagreeing vehemently with each other and revelation seeming sporadic at times. I see our apostles in the same light.

[Anonymous]

I support and sustain Thomas Monson as the PRESIDENT of the LDS church and as A prophet.

I do not believe he is THE PROPHET.

I believe he is a prophet much like the Dalia Lama, MLK, Tolkien, Uchtdorf, Joanna Brookes, Gene Roddenberry, Wayfarer, etc etc.

I do not have TR.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Called to Serve wrote:

When President Monson became church leader I felt it important to gain a testimony of him as a prophet. I prayed and was surprised not to be given such a testimony. In fact, I may have felt the Spirit telling me, no, he isn’t…I have not been to the temple for quite some time because I felt I shouldn’t go if I couldn’t answer all the questions as they were intended to be answered…I would love to know how some of you feel about this issue. I have no problem whatsoever of believing this is the Lord’s church and that the leaders are called by Him as leaders for this church. I don’t believe this automatically makes them prophets or anything else…I am not overly concerned about going to the temple…Do I be bold or try to fit in? I am walking the line right now and just not sure which way to go or how to proceed.

From my perspective it looks like temple recommends are mostly for true believers and/or Church members that are worried about what other members will think about them if they don’t have one. If you don’t believe it all and if what other members think about you is not a major concern for you then there is really no pressing need to have a temple recommend. The peer pressure involved with temple “worthiness” is also why I wouldn’t blame anyone too much for just telling them what they want to hear in order to get a temple recommend because of all the gossip and unfair judgments that are likely to occur if they don’t have one.

It’s easy to say that complete honesty is supposedly always the best policy but sometimes it’s not that easy to deal with the harsh realities that come with the territory of actual brutal honesty in practice. Personally I don’t see how the Church can really expect full disclosure of any potential “unworthiness” out of members while they continue to rely so much on whitewashed history and doctrines mostly because they know full well that telling members everything they could is probably not going to produce the results they want to see.

[Anonymous]

DA, I would disagree with one thing you said:

Quote:

From my perspective it looks like temple recommends are mostly for true believers and/or Church members that are worried about what other members will think about them if they don’t have one.

I recently got my TR after along absence. I got it to see if I was missing anything spiritually on a personal level.

I wanted to see if my DW & I could take our relationship to a different (higher) level too.

After going back to the temple, I found that I did miss it.

I could care less what anyone else thinks about me.

Maybe that’s why I picked OPR’s picture for my avatar.

[Anonymous]

Mike wrote:

DA, I would disagree with one thing you said:

Quote:

From my perspective it looks like temple recommends are mostly for true believers and/or Church members that are worried about what other members will think about them if they don’t have one.

I recently got my TR after along absence. I got it to see if I was missing anything spiritually on a personal level.

I wanted to see if my DW & I could take our relationship to a different (higher) level too.

After going back to the temple, I found that I did miss it.

I could care less what anyone else thinks about me.

Maybe that’s why I picked OPR’s picture for my avatar.

I’m glad to hear about your positive experience returning to the temple and that you did this for your own reasons. I understand that there are usually exceptions to every rule or generalization and there could be endless combinations of different motivations to go to the temple. What I meant was simply that I think the majority of members with current temple recommends believe most of what the Church teaches and that this is what they are supposed to do and/or they are afraid of what other members would think about them if they didn’t get a recommend when they did; not that there aren’t any other factors that also play a part. Some of my cynicism about temples and temple worthiness probably comes from living in Utah my entire life other than during my mission and seeing some of the hypocrisy that goes on here first hand and especially seeing the way my family reacted when I didn’t get married in the temple.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

my thoughts only.

I see President Monson as the Prophet. To be a prophet one must prophesy. While I don’t suggest he receives revelations constantly, I see him as the one whom if the Lord gives a revelation to the world, it will be through him. That is enough for me to see him as the prophet. That in essence he holds the keys and can only reveal what God chooses to reveal. That said I think we also have to take into account that Post Christ prophet is a different function then pre Christ prophet. We sometimes want to make them seem the same. I see President Monson in the same way I see Peter (or whoever your facts say was the head apostle).

The new testament shows the apostles as very human, disagreeing vehemently with each other and revelation seeming sporadic at times. I see our apostles in the same light.

I’d mostly agree with this. I don’t think everything that comes from the prophet’s mouth is gospel truth and I think he’s perfectly capable of making mistakes or merely voicing his personal opinion/counsel (i.e. only one pair of earrings.)

[Anonymous]

sailaway, I actually think DB agrees with you.

There is a thread specifically about this to which I will link.

[Anonymous]

sailaway wrote:

DBMormon wrote:

my thoughts only.

I see President Monson as the Prophet. To be a prophet one must prophesy. While I don’t suggest he receives revelations constantly, I see him as the one whom if the Lord gives a revelation to the world, it will be through him. That is enough for me to see him as the prophet. That in essence he holds the keys and can only reveal what God chooses to reveal. That said I think we also have to take into account that Post Christ prophet is a different function then pre Christ prophet. We sometimes want to make them seem the same. I see President Monson in the same way I see Peter (or whoever your facts say was the head apostle).

The new testament shows the apostles as very human, disagreeing vehemently with each other and revelation seeming sporadic at times. I see our apostles in the same light.

I’d mostly agree with this. I don’t think everything that comes from the prophet’s mouth is gospel truth and I think he’s perfectly capable of making mistakes or merely voicing his personal opinion/counsel (i.e. only one pair of earrings.)

I do completely agree, thanks for having my back Ray – by the way Ray I sent you a message on Skype.

[Anonymous]

Called to Serve wrote:

I have not been to the temple for quite some time because I felt I shouldn’t go if I couldn’t answer all the questions as they were intended to be answered. I have pondered and prayed many times about the status of the church leaders before God. Though I feel no desire to judge them, they are the church leaders and I am asked by the church to sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators, which I have decided I cannot do since I have not had that knowledge revealed to me by God.

Bruce in Montana wrote:

I guess I would honestly research what a Prophet is….what a Revelator is….and what constitutes a Seer.

I’m actually a little surprised that this hasn’t been metioned before… but “prophets, seers, and revelators” as we use the term in our modern day church can also be seen as a title and not a job description. The temple question is in part intended to weed out people that feel that someone else has the true keys. This doesn’t even necessarily require that you believe that the prophet would be the only source of God’s truth to the world. God could very well speak through the “Dalia Lama, MLK, Tolkien, Uchtdorf, Joanna Brookes, Gene Roddenberry, or Wayfarer” to provide truth to verious pockets of his children – and still have Pres. Monson be the official and authorized source to Mormons.

Unless you secretly feel that Pres. Monson should be supplanted by Warren Jeffs (or anyone else claiming the role of divine leadership) then I think you would be safe to answer this question in the affirmative.

[Anonymous]

The following link is to the thread about the temple recommend question about sustaining church leaders:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3374

[Anonymous]

I try to see the good in him. I missed Hinkley for a long time after he died and struggled with the idea of Monson as prophet (even as an, at the time, TBM).

One day while listening to p’hood session in the car, I got an overwhelming sense of his decency, kindness, charity. In a time of selfishness he stood out as a beacon of service. Every prophet seems to have a mission or emphasis. Maybe his is to simply help us be more compassionate. I’d be ok with that.

[Anonymous]

TSM is a prophet because enough people support him as such. Obama is president for the same reason. The minute the support dwindles to a small minority the authority of the position is gone. Either you would be removed from office or you would become a lame duck. MOrmonism is great at lifting men up in the eyes of their peers to make them prophets, seers, and revelators. Not because they do any of those things but because enough people believe they can. It is moot whether they actually have prophetic ability since no one really calls them on it that matters.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

The following link is to the thread about the temple recommend question about sustaining church leaders:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3374

Thanks, that was a helpful thread. It brings up a lot of issues.

Do I think I could define the question in a way that would make it possible for me to say yes? Sure, I suppose so. I never actually thought to check the dictionary; I was studying the scriptures to find the answer. Will that satisfy me? No. It’s not my goal to just “get a temple recommend” or to give my bishop the “right” answer. My goal is to bring my fellowman to Christ. Because I am dedicated to helping members of the church come unto Christ, my relationship with the church and my understanding of it’s place in God’s plan is important to me.

Do I believe the church leadership are prophets according to the characteristics of prophets I see in the scriptures? No. There’s just no way I can reconcile that. Lehi had to flee for his life for telling the uncomfortable truth. He was rejected as a prophet by those he taught, even some in his own family. But he never ceased to be a prophet of God, called of God, and because of that, God blessed him with a long line of people who revered him as such. Though I suppose for a time, Lehi was wondering if anyone would ever believe he was truly called of God.

I think that’s my answer. I’ve been hoping that I could find some way to answer yes to that question, get my temple recommend, not make a lot of waves, but the truth is, I don’t accept them as prophets (let alone seers and revelators). Leaders of the church? Yes. Even called of God to be such. But prophets of God? No. And the only reason why I can’t say they are prophets of God is because God Himself has not testified to me that they are. I don’t have a right to decide that for myself.

[Author]

Posts