Modern-Day Prophets

[Polaris]

This is a topic that has recently come up briefly in a few different threads so I decided it was time to bring it up on its own.

As many of you know, we LDS believe in a living modern-day prophet, called of God, and authorized to clarify and establish doctrines, and even canonize new revelations and new scripture. As one of our articles of faith states... "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." We believe this is done through his chosen prophets just as explained by Amos - "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7).

In light of the passage in Amos, and the fact that much of Christianity is based on the very existance of prophets, revelations, and inspired writings, why does it seem that most Christians deny the existance or even possible existance of modern-day prophets? It is ironic to me that a significant portion of the Bible portrays prophets who are rejected by the people and yet many Christians are so quick to do the same today. Why?

 

[Smoke]

Just for clarification, is this a debate for all Christians, or just LDS? (Not that I'm in either way. )

 

[Katzpur]

Just for clarification, is this a debate for all Christians, or just LDS? (Not that I'm in either way. )

If it's in the debate forum, it would have to be for all Christians, since the Latter-day Saints would all see eye-to-eye on the matter.

 

[Polaris]

Just for clarification, is this a debate for all Christians, or just LDS? (Not that I'm in either way. )

All Christians. Sorry if that wasn't clear, maybe this should be moved to the Biblical Debate forum.

 

[Smoke]

All Christians. Sorry if that wasn't clear, maybe this should be moved to the Biblical Debate forum.

Probably better to keep it here if you want to restrict it to Christians. Just wanted to be clear from the outset who was invited to debate. Of course, as Katzpur pointed out, I should've been able to figure that out.

 

[Polaris]

Probably better to keep it here if you want to restrict it to Christians. Just wanted to be clear from the outset who was invited to debate. Of course, as Katzpur pointed out, I should've been able to figure that out.

As long as the debate doesn't turn into questioning the validity of Christianity in general or the Bible I have no problem with non-Christians sharing their views. The point is I find it ironic that many Christians, whose beliefs are based on prophets and inspired writings, are so quick to deny the existance of such today. If you have relevant insights on the topic, please share, regardless of whether you're Christian or not.

 

[kai]

i dont see why there cant be more prophets,unless there is something in scripture to say so , i know muslims say that mohamed was the last, is there anything in the new testement to say anything similar,what would it do to the popes position,i think a lot of people would be reluctant to hail a new prophet in the old countries ,vested interests and all that.

 

[Polaris]

i dont see why there cant be more prophets,unless there is something in scripture to say so , i know muslims say that mohamed was the last, is there anything in the new testement to say anything similar,what would it do to the popes position,i think a lot of people would be reluctant to hail a new prophet in the old countries ,vested interests and all that.

I don't know of anything in the NT that indicates there should be no more prophets. To the contrary Paul taught that the very foundation of Christ's church consists of "apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 2:20). And Amos' statement that I referenced previously seems to indicate quite emphatically that prophets are necessary.

You raise an interesting point. In order for many Christians to even begin to accept modern-day prophets and revelation, their view of the Pope would likely have to be altered.

So is it the vested interests of the people that keep them from realistically considering the possible existance of modern-day prophets, despite what scripture says and what Christianity itself is founded on?

 

[Quiddity]

This is a topic that has recently come up briefly in a few different threads so I decided it was time to bring it up on its own.

As many of you know, we LDS believe in a living modern-day prophet, called of God, and authorized to clarify and establish doctrines, and even canonize new revelations and new scripture. As one of our articles of faith states... "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." We believe this is done through his chosen prophets just as explained by Amos - "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7).

In light of the passage in Amos, and the fact that much of Christianity is based on the very existance of prophets, revelations, and inspired writings, why does it seem that most Christians deny the existance or even possible existance of modern-day prophets? It is ironic to me that a significant portion of the Bible portrays prophets who are rejected by the people and yet many Christians are so quick to do the same today. Why?

I think most Christians don't deny that modern-day prophets are among us. The disagreement is going to lie on the function and defintion of a prophet.

List of Catholic Prophets
http://web.archive.org/web/20041028090404/http:/myweb.tiscali.co.uk/praeternatural/

Prophecy, Prophet, and Prophetess
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm

 

[Polaris]

I think most Christians don't deny that modern-day prophets are among us. The disagreement is going to lie on the function and defintion of a prophet.

OK. Good point. So why don't we establish a definition based on what we know about prophets from the Bible:

- Called by God and divinely inspired by Him.
- Singularly authorized to receive revelation (new knowledge) from God and establish it as doctrinally binding truth, including the establishment of new scripture.
- Subject to divine manifestations (angelic visitations, visions, etc)

Clearly there are others, but these seem to be relatively important ones. Do you have a problem with any of these as stated? If not, do you believe there is someone alive now that fits this description?

 

[michel]

[/color]

OK. Good point. So why don't we establish a definition based on what we know about prophets from the Bible:

- Called by God and divinely inspired by Him.
- Singularly authorized to receive revelation (new knowledge) from God and establish it as doctrinally binding truth, including the establishment of new scripture.
- Subject to divine manifestations (angelic visitations, visions, etc)

Clearly there are others, but these seem to be relatively important ones. Do you have a problem with any of these as stated? If not, do you believe there is someone alive now that fits this description?
[/color]

It's strange that you would bring this up.

I was thinking this morning "What is stopping me from saying that I have had a visitation from God (apart from the fact that it is untruthful), and that God confirmed that my beliefs are correct, and that I should tell everyone what I 'know'" ?

a) How could I possibly prove it ?
b) How could anyone prove I was a fake ?

 

[Bishka]

It's strange that you would bring this up.

I was thinking this morning "What is stopping me from saying that I have had a visitation from God (apart from the fact that it is untruthful), and that God confirmed that my beliefs are correct, and that I should tell everyone what I 'know'" ?

a) How could I possibly prove it ?
b) How could anyone prove I was a fake ?

The Holy Spirit/Ghost

 

[Polaris]

It's strange that you would bring this up.

I was thinking this morning "What is stopping me from saying that I have had a visitation from God (apart from the fact that it is untruthful), and that God confirmed that my beliefs are correct, and that I should tell everyone what I 'know'" ?

a) How could I possibly prove it ?
b) How could anyone prove I was a fake ?

Good point. There is nothing to stop you from creating your own story, and there is really no way to difinitively prove your story to be true, even if it were. The best way for anyone to determine the validity of your claims would be to consider the following questions:

- Are you a good, honest person?
- Are your claims doctrinally compatible with the scriptures (in the context of this thread I'm assuming a Christian premise)?
- Are the principles you portray in harmony with those that Christ taught?
- Are the "fruits" of your vision and subsequent actions and teachings good (i.e. by their fruits ye shall know them)?

If all these conditions are met then there is good reason to take your claims seriously. I agree with becky though, the only way for one to really know the truth is from God through the Holy Ghost.

 

[sojourner]

This is a topic that has recently come up briefly in a few different threads so I decided it was time to bring it up on its own.

As many of you know, we LDS believe in a living modern-day prophet, called of God, and authorized to clarify and establish doctrines, and even canonize new revelations and new scripture. As one of our articles of faith states... "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." We believe this is done through his chosen prophets just as explained by Amos - "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7).

In light of the passage in Amos, and the fact that much of Christianity is based on the very existance of prophets, revelations, and inspired writings, why does it seem that most Christians deny the existance or even possible existance of modern-day prophets? It is ironic to me that a significant portion of the Bible portrays prophets who are rejected by the people and yet many Christians are so quick to do the same today. Why?

One word: Sectarianism. RC's have the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Why don't LDS accept him as a prophet? His role is much the same as the LDS prophet. What about Ghandi? The Dalai Lama? Their lives were/are certainly prophetic.

You wonder why the rest of us don't recognize your prophets? Why don't you venerate the saints?

Sectarianism. None of the rest of us had any hand or any say in the calling and election of your prophet...why should we accept him? Because you say so? What if the RC's invited y'all to be part of the process of electing a new pope? Would you be included in that? Or would you assert that a pope is not necessary?

The culprit here is nothing more or less than sectarianism.

 

[Katzpur]

One word: Sectarianism. RC's have the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Why don't LDS accept him as a prophet? His role is much the same as the LDS prophet. What about Ghandi? The Dalai Lama? Their lives were/are certainly prophetic.

You wonder why the rest of us don't recognize your prophets? Why don't you venerate the saints?

Sectarianism. None of the rest of us had any hand or any say in the calling and election of your prophet...why should we accept him? Because you say so? What if the RC's invited y'all to be part of the process of electing a new pope? Would you be included in that? Or would you assert that a pope is not necessary?

The culprit here is nothing more or less than sectarianism.

You're starting to be very predictable, Sojourner. It's quickly getting to where you just turn every debate into an anti-Mormon tirade. This thread really has little to do with why you or anybody else should accept the LDS prophet as a legitimate spokesman for God. If you will read the OP again you will see that the question asked was not, "Is Gordon B. Hinckley a prophet of God?" It was, "In light of the passage in Amos, and the fact that much of Christianity is based on the very existance of prophets, revelations, and inspired writings, why does it seem that most Christians deny the existance or even possible existance of modern-day prophets?"

If the culprit here is sectarianism, it's because that's what you've chosen to make it. Why don't you try actually addressing the question for a change. If you do not believe there is a need for living prophets today, tell us why. I'm sure you have the ability to do so as well. Tell us why you believe there were to be no more prophets called after Jesus Christ. Kai, Victor, and Michel were all able to address the topic without turning this into a sectarian battle. I am willing to bet that you might have some interesting thoughts on the subject. Take the time to sort them out and then come back with a less confrontational attitude. And for crying out loud, stop seeing us as the enemy. We're not.

 

[michel]

The Holy Spirit/Ghost

I am not sure I understand you Becky; could you expand ?

 

[SoyLeche]

I am not sure I understand you Becky; could you expand ?

I think that she is trying to say that you can prove to people that you are a Prophet if the Holy Ghost is willing to witness to the fact in their hearts.

 

[Polaris]

One word: Sectarianism. RC's have the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Why don't LDS accept him as a prophet? His role is much the same as the LDS prophet. What about Ghandi? The Dalai Lama? Their lives were/are certainly prophetic.

OK, I have a few questions then.

- Does the Pope claim to be a prophet?
- Does he alone claim to be authorized to receive revelation and establish new doctrines as truth, and cannonize new scripture?
- Did Ghandi or the Dalai Lama ever claim to be prophets?
- Did they ever claim to be authorized to receive revelation from God and establish new divine doctrinal truths pertinent to the eternal salvation of mankind?

You wonder why the rest of us don't recognize your prophets? Why don't you venerate the saints?

Show me where in the Bible that the veneration of saints is ever taught or even practiced? Prophets, on the other hand are the very ones whose teachings make the Bible holy.

Sectarianism. None of the rest of us had any hand or any say in the calling and election of your prophet...why should we accept him? Because you say so? What if the RC's invited y'all to be part of the process of electing a new pope? Would you be included in that? Or would you assert that a pope is not necessary?

Prophets aren't called by the people, they are called by God. They never have been and never should be elected by the people.

The culprit here is nothing more or less than sectarianism.

You may be right. Sectarianism may very well be a major factor as to why many Christians don't believe in the need or possibility of a modern-day prophet.

 

[SoyLeche]

You may be right. Sectarianism may very well be a major factor as to why many Christians don't believe in the need or possibility of a modern-day prophet.

I can see how it would explain why a group may not accept a specific individual as a prophet, but I don't see how sectarianism explains why they would reject the idea of a modern-day prophet.

 

[Green Gaia]

As long as the debate doesn't turn into questioning the validity of Christianity in general or the Bible I have no problem with non-Christians sharing their views.

If you insist.

But I have a problem with your definition:

- Called by God and divinely inspired by Him.
- Singularly authorized to receive revelation (new knowledge) from God and establish it as doctrinally binding truth, including the establishment of new scripture.
- Subject to divine manifestations (angelic visitations, visions, etc)

It is basically meaningless outside the Abrahamic faiths if you base it soley on the concept of a prophet found in the Bible. So if you insist on using this definition you will have to restrict the debate to Christians, or at least those of the Abrahamic traditions.

But if you're willing to open the definition to include, "A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression," then I can answer you and emphatically state that yes, there are many modern day prophets.