huckelberry wrote:Perhaps that is why there is only one representative, Jesus.
I know that view is a bit outside of the discussion but I could not stop myself from adding that alternative view. After all I think the Mormon church invented its concept of prophet to suit itself.
I think it's more accurate to say that Mormonism invented its concept of prophet to suit its first "prophet."
What is religion, but a mere invention of mankind? God is there, Christ is there, but only stereotypes of them (long white beard, deep voices, et al). Its a man-made creation, and like any other creations mankind makes, you will find that its a tool that can be used, if only applied the correct way. Don't use a flathead screwdriver to remove a phillip's head.
Nephi wrote: I think it's more accurate to say that Mormonism invented its concept of prophet to suit its first "prophet."
What is religion, but a mere invention of mankind? God is there, Christ is there, but only stereotypes of them (long white beard, deep voices, et al). Its a man-made creation, and like any other creations mankind makes, you will find that its a tool that can be used, if only applied the correct way. Don't use a flathead screwdriver to remove a phillip's head.[/quote]
The problem is that some tools do more damage than good.
Runtu wrote:I think it's more accurate to say that Mormonism invented its concept of prophet to suit its first "prophet."
I believe that is *precisely* what Joseph Smith was doing as he wrote the Book of Mormon. The holy men, or prophets, of the Book of Mormon do things Joseph Smith was doing (translating dead languages with 'divine' instruments). My guess is that this was purposely done to validate Joseph Smith's gifts as a natural part of the prophetic office.
I am a bit too far away from the Book of Mormon to trust my memory so I will pose my thought as a question. Does the Book of Mormon conflate prophets and Kings? This is fallow up to Trevors observation that the Book of Mormon makes precedent for the role of prophet that Joseph developed in his own postion.
The world has all kinds of prophets so to ask for disqualifications it matters what sort. I am pretty sure we are talking about the Biblical, Mormon view. I suspect though those two words, Biblical, Mormon are related there is a difference in the meaning of prophet in the two contexts. In the Bible prophets are multiple. They do not always agree with each other. It does not appear they have an authority postition though people value their words. They can confront and criticize kings but they are not themselves in control. People value them or not on the basis of the value they find in the words the prophet speaks. It would appear from the selecting process in the Old Testament that people in retrospect find some messages of enough value that they are preserved and become cannon. Most prophets are forgotten. Perhaps they were good or mediocer or not so good. We do not hear much. What we hear are the words people later found to help understand events, words people found helpful for their understanding of truth.
huckelberry wrote:I am a bit too far away from the Book of Mormon to trust my memory so I will pose my thought as a question. Does the Book of Mormon conflate prophets and Kings? This is fallow up to Trevors observation that the Book of Mormon makes precedent for the role of prophet that Joseph developed in his own postion.
I would say yes, or, at least, there is overlap between the two, and this makes Joseph's later anointing as the king of the kingdom of God on earth all the more interesting. Joseph's uncle in a letter poked fun at him for claiming that the Lord had given Joseph dominion over Palmyra. Interesting, huh?