Modern-Day Prophets

[Quiddity]

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.

No it's not.
Nothing the Bishop of Rome proclaims from the Chair of Peter is "new" doctrine. We don't believe in Progressive Revelation. We follow the same formula inscribed in the Council of Jerusalem in the books of Acts. An organic collegial body with a head who clarifies and defines matters of faith and morals.

~Victor

 

[Green Gaia]

- Does the Pope claim to be a prophet?
- Did Ghandi or the Dalai Lama ever claim to be prophets?

Does someone have to claim to be a prophet to be called a prophet?

 

[michel]

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.

Sorry, I am being slow; do you mean if the people 'have faith in me' ? If not, what do you mean by "the Holy Ghost is willing to witness to the fact in their hearts" ?

 

[Quiddity]

Does someone have to claim to be a prophet to be called a prophet?

And even if they did, would that make him/her one?

 

[Green Gaia]

And even if they did, would that make him/her one?

Depends on what your definition of a prophet is.

 

[dan]

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.

They may have led exemplary lives and been prophetic, but they were not called of God and set apart by the laying on of hands by those in authority to officiate in the office of prophet, seer and revelator. The Lord has always maintained strict control over who is viewed as having authority in His kingdom. The ecclesiastical leader was always anointed or sustained in a public forum. Why should it be any different today?

 

[SoyLeche]

Sorry, I am being slow; do you mean if the people 'have faith in me' ? If not, what do you mean by "the Holy Ghost is willing to witness to the fact in their hearts" ?

If the Holy Ghost will confirm to me that you are a prophet, I will believe it. If it won't, I won't. I don't think I can get any more detailed though. Trying to explain how the Holy Ghost communicates with different individuals is pretty difficult.

 

[Polaris]

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.

Right, which is why I started the thread in the Same-Faith Debates forum. The whole point of the OP is directed to Christians, and I would like to keep the definition of a prophet in a Christian context (otherwise there would be no limits to the definition of a prophet and this thread would lose its intended focus). I just didn't want to restrict non-Christians from posting if they have relevant contributions.

Does someone have to claim to be a prophet to be called a prophet?

To a certain extent I believe they do. All biblical prophets claimed to have authority to speak for God and were instructed by Him as to what to teach.

 

[Polaris]

Nothing the Bishop of Rome proclaims from the Chair of Peter is "new" doctrine. We don't believe in Progressive Revelation. We follow the same formula inscribed in the Council of Jerusalem in the books of Acts. An organic collegial body with a head who clarifies and defines matters of faith and morals.

This hits very close to my initial questions. Why, in light of the statements of Amos, and the fact that the very foundations of Christian belief rely on prophets, continued revelation, and inspired writings, would it make sense to deny the existance of such things now?

 

[Quiddity]

Depends on what your definition of a prophet is.

I'm willing to work with someone else's definition, but they better have a firework show for me or something....

 

[Green Gaia]

Right, which is why I started the thread in the Same-Faith Debates forum. The whole point of the OP is directed to Christians, and I would like to keep the definition of a prophet in a Christian context (otherwise there would be no limits to the definition of a prophet and this thread would lose its intended focus). I just didn't want to restrict non-Christians from posting if they have relevant contributions.

It's rather hard for us to have relevant contributions if the framework of the discussion is not applicable to our beliefs. So I will leave you to it.

 

[Quiddity]

This hits very close to my initial questions. Why, in light of the statements of Amos, and the fact that the very foundations of Christian belief rely on prophets, continued revelation, and inspired writings, would it make sense to deny the existance of such things now?

Because Amos was speaking of times past. If I was in 800 B.C. for example, I still would be wary of prophets. Why shouldn't I? Some prophets didn't teach anything new, they just warned and confirmed. Those that did teach something new, would be scrutinized with current information.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm willing to work with someone else's definition, but they better have a firework show for me or something....

My fireworks have been confiscated. Another time perhaps.

 

[Quiddity]

My fireworks have been confiscated. Another time perhaps.

Cart wheels will work just fine.

 

[Polaris]

Because Amos was speaking of times past. If I was in 800 B.C. for example, I still would be wary of prophets. Why shouldn't I? Some prophets didn't teach anything new, they just warned and confirmed. Those that did teach something new, would be scrutinized with current information.

Amos said "surely the Lord God will do nothing save he revealeth his secrets to his servants the prophets" NOT "surely the Lord God has done". Also Paul taught that the very foundation of Christ's church consists of "apostles and prophets". Sure, the existance of false prophets was prophecied, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be true prophets.

I can understand you being wary of prophets for fear of being decieved by false prophets, but to flat out reject anyone who claims to be a prophet and to reject the idea of continued revelation is inconsistant with the whole foundation of Christianity.

 

[Quiddity]

Amos said "surely the Lord God will do nothing save he revealeth his secrets to his servants the prophets" NOT "surely the Lord God has done". Also Paul taught that the very foundation of Christ's church consists of "apostles and prophets". Sure, the existance of false prophets was prophecied, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be true prophets.

I can understand you being wary of prophets for fear of being decieved by false prophets, but to flat out reject anyone who claims to be a prophet and to reject the idea of continued revelation is inconsistant with the whole foundation of Christianity.

Assuming I submit to your future tense (which I believe, but I think it ended with the death of the last apostle) in bold.....(see the NAB below in green)....
Indeed, the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants, the prophets.
we still have that pesky problem of definition. But tell me Polaris, what "new" doctrinal information did Amos present?

 

[Polaris]

But tell me Polaris, what "new" doctrinal information did Amos present?

It's hard to say what "new" doctrines he presented. He taught about an apostasy -- a complete famine of the word of God. We don't have all of his teachings and we don't know exactly what all doctrines had been presented before him. But do you deny that he had authority to receive continued revelation and present new doctrinal information? His teachings have obviously been worthy of scriptural cannonization.

Continuing revelation through prophets and/or apostles has always been the way the Lord has guided his people. To claim that we don't need continued revelation is to claim that we don't need God's continued guidance.

 

[sojourner]

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.

The question had to have been asked with Mormon prophets in mind, and with the Mormon idea of modern-day continuing prophecy in mind, since Mormons are the largest (and one of the very, very few) established sects that hold the belief of modern-day prophecy. that, by definition, makes the very OP sectarian in nature, because it sets the LDS apart from the "rest" of Christianity. The question infers the validity of Mormon prophets, because there are no other recognized modern-day prophets. So, the question could be rephrased to say, "Why don't y'all believe like we do?"

If you will be kind enough to note, I did not disparage LDS doctrine. (I did point out several other well-known and respected religious leaders that the LDS do not acknowledge, and turned the question around to ask why that was -- not to disparage the LDS, but to illustrate the inherent sectarianism of the OP.)

Here's an excellent LDS example of sectarian thought on the matter of modern-day prophets:

Dan (LDS) said:

They may have led exemplary lives and been prophetic, but they were not called of God and set apart by the laying on of hands by those in authority to officiate in the office of prophet, seer and revelator. The Lord has always maintained strict control over who is viewed as having authority in His kingdom. The ecclesiastical leader was always anointed or sustained in a public forum. Why should it be any different today?

The part of the quote in red is patently sectarian in nature. How does Dan know that the people I mentioned were not called of God? Or that hands were not laid on them? Or that they were not set apart? How does he know that the church that confirms the pope's appointment has no "authority?"

I'd be willing to bet real money that the popes all have hands laid on them by someone "in authority."

It all boils down to who is believed to have authority -- which is...sectarianism.

There's nothing wrong with sectarianism. I never said that there was something wrong with sectarianism in my post. But the question "why" was asked, and I provided a reasonable answer. Just because you happen to not like my answer is no reason to label me as confrontational. Pointing out sectarianism is not inherently confrontational.

BTW, I don't see you [LDS] as "the enemy," but I do see any sole claim to authority and/or truth as devisive and harmful to the Body of Christ. I think that sectarianism, if mishandled with these kinds of claims, only serves to undermine the unity and trust that all members of the Church should enjoy.

If y'all want to believe in modern prophets, knock yourselves out! The RC's have a pope. The OC's have patriarchs. The Anglicans have an Archbishop and a college of Bishops. These all serve to further God's kingdom on earth. If Victor asked the same question of why we don't all believe in the pope, I'd give him the very same answer! Or James. Or Luna. Geez!

 

[Quiddity]

It's hard to say what "new" doctrines he presented. He taught about an apostasy -- a complete famine of the word of God. We don't have all of his teachings and we don't know exactly what all doctrines had been presented before him. But do you deny that he had authority to receive continued revelation and present new doctrinal information? His teachings have obviously been worthy of scriptural cannonization.

Continuing revelation through prophets and/or apostles has always been the way the Lord has guided his people. To claim that we don't need continued revelation is to claim that we don't need God's continued guidance.

Just one doctrine will suffice....
Not all revelation is Canonized into the Bible Polaris.
You seem to equate God's guidance with progressive revelation.
You are aware that God can guide us without progressive revelation, right?

 

[Katzpur]

The question had to have been asked with Mormon prophets in mind, and with the Mormon idea of modern-day continuing prophecy in mind, since Mormons are the largest (and one of the very, very few) established sects that hold the belief of modern-day prophecy. that, by definition, makes the very OP sectarian in nature, because it sets the LDS apart from the "rest" of Christianity. The question infers the validity of Mormon prophets, because there are no other recognized modern-day prophets. So, the question could be rephrased to say, "Why don't y'all believe like we do?"

Still, it's a legitimate question. Jesus Christ established His Church on a foundation of prophets and apostles, and Paul stated that this organization was to continue to exist until we all came into the unity of our faith in Christ and understanding of His Gospel. Therefore, the question -- Why do Christians other than the Latter-day Saints not believe in the need for prophets in this day and age? -- is a valid one, and it's one that should be of interest to all Christians.

BTW, I don't see you [LDS] as "the enemy," but I do see any sole claim to authority and/or truth as devisive and harmful to the Body of Christ. I think that sectarianism, if mishandled with these kinds of claims, only serves to undermine the unity and trust that all members of the Church should enjoy.

Well, I'm sorry to have to burst your bubble, but the divisiveness of which you speak has been around since the time of the Apostles, which is precisely why Paul warned about it.

In Ephesians 4:11-13, we read, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..."

Without the foundation of prophets and apostles in tact, Christianity was doomed to become sectarian before it even got off the ground. During the few few centuries after Christ's death, Christiantiy was extremely fragmented. As a matter of fact, there was no clear line between orthodoxy and heresy until well into the second century, and the Catholic tradition was only a part of a still larger movement. Why? Because the foundation of the Church had crumbled. Christ himself prophesied that the apostles and prophets he would send would be persecuted and even killed. Christianity is not the happy little family we all wish it was. It is highly disfunctional and the Latter-day Saints are no more to blame for this than anyone else.

If y'all want to believe in modern prophets, knock yourselves out!

See, it's this kind of sarcasm that bugs me.

The RC's have a pope. The OC's have patriarchs. The Anglicans have an Archbishop and a college of Bishops. These all serve to further God's kingdom on earth.

Yes they do, and you won't hear the Latter-day Saints claiming otherwise. Each and every Christian who sincerely tries to emulate our Savior furthers God's kingdom on earth. Unfortunately, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the men God has appointed to act as His spokesmen -- now as in ancient times. So, back to the question, which you still haven't answered: Why do you deny the need for prophets in this day and age? Have we outgrown them? Are we so sophisticated that they would have nothing of value to teach us? Does God no longer care to communicate with us? Is He no longer capable? Is the Bible so crystal clear about everything that we can get all of our answers from reading it? If that's the case, why do you think so many sincere people continue to disagree on so many points of doctrine?

If Victor asked the same question of why we don't all believe in the pope, I'd give him the very same answer! Or James. Or Luna. Geez.

And if Jesus has appointed Popes to lead His Church, the question would be a valid one. Since He didn't, I don't believe it is.