Do the LDS Prophets Speak for God?

An Academic, Historical, and Traditional
Christian Analysis of LDS Prophetic Claims

Introduction

In examining the role of prophets within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one must first understand the foundational belief that these leaders are divinely appointed representatives of God. The LDS Church maintains that prophets have guided God’s people throughout biblical times and continue to lead humanity today. According to official Church teaching, “A prophet is someone who has been called by God to give guidance to the entire world. From Abraham and Moses to living prophets today, God follows a pattern of guiding His children through prophets.” This claim of continuous prophetic revelation stands as one of the most distinctive features of Latter-day Saint theology.

By contrast, consider the 16th-century prognosticator Nostradamus, whom the History Channel dubs history’s “most famous seer.” A plague doctor, accused heretic, and bearded mystic, he penned cryptic quatrains that enthusiasts have retrofitted to “predict” events like the Great Fire of London, Hitler’s rise, the Sept. 11 attacks, the COVID-19 pandemic, and even last year’s New Year’s Day earthquake. Admirers flock to these interpretations with near-religious zeal, yet Nostradamus hits the mark sporadically at best—his visions skew heavily toward catastrophe and conflagration, with vague phrasing that invites endless reinterpretation. More often than not, the fit between his words and history feels like forcing a square peg into a round hole, a parallel uncomfortably close to many LDS prophetic claims.

However, when evaluating the claims of prophets such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, one must also consider the historical context, the nature of their proclamations, and any contradictions in their teachings. This examination requires careful attention to both LDS apologetic responses and traditional Christian standards for evaluating prophetic authenticity. The question of whether LDS prophets truly speak for God carries profound theological implications, touching upon the nature of divine revelation, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the very character of God Himself.

This essay will provide a comprehensive analysis of this question by examining the claims made by LDS prophets, reviewing documented contradictions and failed prophecies, considering current LDS apologetic responses, and conducting a thorough comparison with the biblical standards for prophets established in the Old Testament. Throughout this analysis, we will maintain respect for sincere Latter-day Saint believers while applying rigorous theological and historical scrutiny to the claims of their prophetic leaders.

The LDS Understanding of Modern Prophets

The Doctrine of Continuous Revelation

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that revelation did not cease with the biblical era but continues through modern prophets. Howard W. Hunter, the fourteenth president of the LDS Church, articulated this position clearly: “We are guided by a living prophet of God—one who receives revelation from the Lord.” This teaching forms the bedrock of LDS ecclesiology and distinguishes Latter-day Saint Christianity from virtually all other Christian traditions.

According to LDS doctrine, the prophetic office encompasses several key functions. The official Gospel Principles manual explains:

“A prophet is a man called by God to be His representative on earth. When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking. A prophet is also a special witness for Christ, testifying of His divinity and teaching His gospel. A prophet teaches truth and interprets the word of God. He calls the unrighteous to repentance. He receives revelations and directions from the Lord for our benefit.”

This comprehensive definition places the prophet at the center of God’s communication with humanity.

The Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual further emphasizes this point: “A prophet’s role is to speak the mind and will of the Lord to the people. When he does so, the Lord teaches, it is as if the Lord Himself had spoken.” This teaching elevates prophetic utterances to the level of divine speech itself, citing Doctrine and Covenants 1:38:

“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”

The Promise of Prophetic Infallibility

Perhaps the most significant claim regarding LDS prophets concerns their inability to lead the Church astray. President Wilford Woodruff stated emphatically:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place.”

This statement, found in the official LDS Gospel Principles manual, presents a categorical guarantee of prophetic reliability.

The practical application of this doctrine is explained further in official Church materials: “If we follow the advice, counsel, and teachings of the leaders of the Church in their instruction to us, we will not go amiss in that which is important for our own personal salvation and exaltation.” This creates a clear expectation among Latter-day Saints that following the prophet’s counsel leads to spiritual safety and eternal reward. The implications are profound: disagreement with prophetic counsel could jeopardize one’s salvation.

The degree of obedience expected is substantial. As one LDS manual states: “We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult.” This call to complete obedience raises important questions about the relationship between faith and critical thinking, and whether such deference is warranted given the historical record of prophetic statements.

The Nature of Prophetic Communication

Within the LDS community itself, there exists considerable discussion about how prophets receive revelation. A Reddit discussion among Latter-day Saints revealed varying perspectives on this question. Some members hold a more mystical view, expecting prophets to have direct, audible conversations with God. Others take a more nuanced position, suggesting that prophetic revelation operates more like the spiritual promptings available to all believers, simply with greater authority and scope.

Saints Unscripted, an unofficial LDS apologetic source, addresses this question directly, noting that modern prophets may not always have the dramatic visions recorded in ancient scripture but still receive divine guidance through the Holy Spirit. This acknowledgment represents an important qualifier to claims of prophetic authority—if prophets receive revelation in the same manner as ordinary believers, what distinguishes their pronouncements from the personal spiritual impressions of any devout individual?

Examining Prophetic Claims and Contradictions

Joseph Smith’s Prophetic Record

Joseph Smith made numerous prophecies throughout his ministry, many documented in the Doctrine and Covenants and the History of the Church. Critics point to several prophecies that appear to have failed, while LDS apologists offer various explanations. A fair examination must consider both the original claims and the subsequent responses.

One of the most discussed prophecies concerns the building of a temple in Independence, Missouri. In Doctrine and Covenants 84:4-5, Joseph Smith recorded:

“Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord.”

The Saints were expelled from Missouri, and no temple was built in Independence during that generation. Critics cite this as a clear failed prophecy, while LDS apologists argue for various interpretations of “generation” or point to conditional elements they believe are implicit in the prophecy.

Joseph Smith also prophesied about his own longevity and the timing of the Second Coming. According to the History of the Church, in 1835 Joseph declared that “it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty six years should wind up the scene.” This would place the Second Coming around 1891, a date that has long since passed. LDS apologists note that Doctrine and Covenants 130:14-17 records Joseph’s own uncertainty about this revelation, acknowledging he did not fully understand its meaning.

The prophecy regarding David W. Patten presents another challenge. In Doctrine and Covenants 114:1, dated April 17, 1838, the Lord supposedly commanded:

“Verily, thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring.”

David W. Patten was killed at the Battle of Crooked River in October 1838, never completing the prophesied mission. FAIR LDS apologetics argue this was a commandment rather than a prophecy of what would occur, but the language “thus saith the Lord” and the specific prediction of a future mission complicate this interpretation.

Additional prophecies that critics cite include Joseph’s 1843 prophecy that Congress would be “broken up as a government” if they did not redress wrongs against the Saints, the prophecy that the United States government would be “utterly overthrown and wasted” within “a few years” if they did not address the Missouri persecutions, and prophecies regarding finding treasure in Salem, Massachusetts. In each case, LDS apologists offer explanations ranging from conditional elements to fulfilled in spiritual rather than temporal ways, while critics maintain these represent straightforward failures of prophetic prediction.

Brigham Young’s Controversial Teachings

Brigham Young, as Joseph Smith’s successor, presents his own set of challenges for the claim that LDS prophets cannot lead the Church astray. Most notably, Young taught as doctrine that Adam was God the Father in physical form—a teaching now officially rejected by the LDS Church. Young declared from the pulpit that he had “never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture,” yet his Adam-God teaching is now considered a false doctrine.

Even within LDS discussions, some acknowledge the difficulty Brigham Young poses. As one forum discussant noted, from even a believing perspective, Brigham Young was “a false prophet” by introducing teachings that the Church has subsequently rejected. Young also taught racial theories to justify the priesthood and temple ban for people of African descent, policies that were reversed in 1978 and have since been disavowed as stemming from racism rather than revelation.

Brigham Young himself acknowledged that prophets can make mistakes. According to B.H. Roberts’ collection, Brigham stated that he could not lead the Church astray, but qualified this by noting that even prophets and apostles, himself included, can make mistakes. This acknowledgment creates tension with the more absolute claims of prophetic reliability found in official Church materials. If prophets can make mistakes, how are followers to distinguish between authoritative revelation and personal error?

LDS Apologetic Responses

FAIR Latter-day Saints, the prominent LDS apologetic organization, offers several frameworks for understanding alleged prophetic failures. They argue that prophecy is typically conditional, even when conditions are not explicitly stated. Citing Jeremiah 18:7-10, they note that God Himself stated He may “repent” of promised blessings or judgments based on human response. This understanding places responsibility on the human recipients of prophecy rather than on the prophet or God.

Additionally, FAIR conveniently distinguishes between prophets speaking “as a prophet” versus sharing “personal opinions.” Joseph Smith himself said, “A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” This creates a framework where not everything a prophet says carries divine authority, though it raises the practical question of how followers can distinguish between the two categories. When Brigham Young taught the Adam-God doctrine, he did not indicate that he was merely sharing personal speculation.

This apologetic approach strikingly mirrors the modern idiom of “moving the goalposts.” In debates or critiques, one party sets clear standards for success or truth, only to redefine them retroactively when those criteria are unmet, ensuring the position remains unassailable. Here, prophetic statements are initially accepted without qualifiers as divinely authoritative—until they conflict with later church teachings. At that point, the goalposts shift: the same words, once heralded, are reclassified as mere opinion, with no objective markers provided upfront to differentiate them. This flexibility safeguards orthodoxy but undermines confidence in discerning God’s voice amid prophetic counsel.

The apologetic response also emphasizes that prophets need not preface revelations with “thus saith the Lord” for them to be authoritative, yet also argues that pronouncements without such formulas may be merely personal opinion. This creates a difficult interpretive situation where the same reasoning is used to both defend prophetic authority and dismiss problematic statements. The standard seems to shift based on whether a particular teaching is currently affirmed or rejected by the Church.

Old Testament Standards for Prophetic Authority

The Biblical Definition of a Prophet

Understanding the biblical conception of prophets is essential for evaluating claims of modern prophetic authority. In the Hebrew Bible, prophets served as God’s authorized spokespersons to His covenant people. The Hebrew word nabi, typically translated “prophet,” indicates one who speaks on behalf of another—specifically, on behalf of God. As David Jeremiah explains, “A prophet is one who has been called and raised up by the Lord to further God’s purposes among his children. He is one who has received the priesthood and speaks with authority.”

The foundational text for understanding prophetic authentication appears in Deuteronomy 18:20-22:

“But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”

This passage establishes predictive accuracy as a necessary (though not sufficient) criterion for authentic prophecy.

Deuteronomy 13 provides a second test: even if a prophet’s prediction comes true, if that prophet leads people away from the God revealed in Scripture, the prophet is false. This creates a dual standard: prophets must both speak accurately and lead people toward the true God. The combination protects against both fraudulent claims and demonic deception.

Characteristics of Old Testament Prophets

Old Testament prophets shared several distinctive characteristics that established their credentials. First, they received direct divine revelation through dreams, visions, or the “word of the Lord.” Numbers 12:6 records God saying:

“If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.”

The immediacy and clarity of divine communication distinguished true prophets from false ones who “prophesy out of their own hearts” (Ezekiel 13:2).

Second, Old Testament prophets functioned as covenant mediators, calling Israel back to faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant. They did not introduce new covenants or new requirements beyond what God had already revealed at Sinai. Their message was consistently one of return and restoration: “Thus says the Lord: Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls” (Jeremiah 6:16). This conservative function contrasts with prophets who claim to introduce new doctrines, ordinances, or scriptures.

Third, the prophets’ messages pointed toward the coming Messiah and the fulfillment of God’s redemptive purposes. Remarkably, nearly 300 Old Testament prophecies—spanning centuries—anticipated Jesus’ advent with stunning precision, from His lineage and birthplace to His ministry, death, and resurrection. Isaiah prophesied the virgin birth (7:14), the suffering servant (53), and the coming of the anointed one. Micah predicted Bethlehem as the birthplace (5:2). Daniel outlined the timeline leading to the Messiah’s arrival (9:24-27). The prophetic office existed to prepare God’s people for Christ, not to establish ongoing prophetic succession.

Fourth, Old Testament prophets demonstrated remarkable moral courage, often confronting kings and religious leaders at great personal risk. Nathan rebuked David for adultery and murder (2 Samuel 12). Elijah challenged Ahab and the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). Jeremiah endured imprisonment for his unwavering message (Jeremiah 37-38). True prophets did not adjust their message to please their audience or preserve their social standing.

The Prophetic Office in Biblical Theology

Understanding prophets within the broader framework of biblical theology illuminates their function and limitations. The prophetic office emerged because Israel needed mediators between themselves and God. At Sinai, the people begged Moses to speak to God on their behalf (Exodus 20:19). Prophets served this mediatorial role, bringing God’s word to the people and, at times, interceding on behalf of the people before God.

However, the prophetic office was always understood as pointing beyond itself to a greater prophet to come. Moses himself prophesied: “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken” (Deuteronomy 18:15). The New Testament identifies this prophet as Jesus Christ (Acts 3:22-23). In Christ, the prophetic office finds its ultimate fulfillment.

Jesus, as noted in John 1:1—“In the beginning was the Word”—signifies that the divine expression, reason, or creative principle (Logos) existed eternally with God before creation, distinct from God yet fully divine, and ultimately became incarnate as Jesus Christ, who brought God’s message and essence to the world. This connects directly to the idea that God created through His spoken word (Genesis 1:3), identifying Jesus as that divine, creative Word who embodies God’s nature and purpose while fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies. With Christ’s arrival, the need for further prophetic offices ends, as the eternal Logos has fully revealed the Father.

The author of Hebrews articulates this fulfillment clearly: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.” (Hebrews 1:1-2). The shift from “prophets” to “Son” indicates a change in God’s mode of communication. The fragmentary, progressive revelation through various prophets has given way to the complete, final revelation in Jesus Christ.

Comparing LDS Prophets to Biblical Standards

The Test of Predictive Accuracy

Applying the Deuteronomy 18 test to LDS prophets reveals significant concerns. Multiple prophecies attributed to Joseph Smith have not come to pass as stated. While LDS apologists offer various explanations involving conditional elements or alternative interpretations, the biblical text appears to demand a stricter standard. The passage does not say, “If the thing does not come to pass unless conditions were unmet or unless the prophecy is interpreted figuratively, then the Lord has not spoken.” Rather, it presents a straightforward test: did the predicted event occur?

LDS apologists correctly note that some biblical prophecies appear conditional. Jonah’s prophecy against Nineveh did not come to pass as stated because the people repented. However, several important distinctions apply. First, Nineveh’s case involved a clear moral response (repentance) that aligned with God’s revealed purposes. The failure of Joseph Smith’s temple prophecy was not due to righteousness but to persecution—yet elsewhere in LDS scripture, God promises protection from enemies when His people are faithful. Second, Jonah’s prophecy was explicitly a warning allowing for repentance, while Joseph Smith’s prophecies often took the form of categorical predictions about what God would do.

Furthermore, the rate of apparent failures among Joseph Smith’s specific predictions exceeds what we see with biblical prophets whose writings have been preserved in Scripture. The very fact that the biblical prophetic books were preserved indicates a track record that established their authenticity to those who compiled the canon. When Isaiah predicted Cyrus by name (Isaiah 44:28-45:1) centuries before his birth, or Daniel outlined the succession of empires with remarkable precision, these prophets demonstrated predictive accuracy that validated their divine commissioning.

The Test of Doctrinal Consistency

Deuteronomy 13 establishes that even apparently successful prophecy cannot validate a prophet who leads people away from the true God. This test requires examining whether LDS prophets have introduced teachings consistent with or contrary to biblical revelation. Here, the concerns multiply significantly.

Joseph Smith introduced a radically different doctrine of God than that found in traditional Christianity or Judaism. The LDS teaching that God the Father was once a man who progressed to godhood, that humans can likewise become gods, and that there exist innumerable gods throughout the cosmos contradicts the biblical testimony that God is eternally God (Psalm 90:2), that beside Him there is no other God (Isaiah 44:6), and that He does not change (Malachi 3:6). These are not minor doctrinal variations but fundamental alterations to the biblical doctrine of God.

Similarly, the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures introduce new scriptures, new covenants, new ordinances, and new requirements for salvation beyond what the Bible teaches. While LDS members believe these represent restoration of lost truths, traditional Christians see them as additions to a closed biblical canon—precisely what Revelation 22:18-19 warns against. The introduction of temple ordinances, eternal marriage requirements, and other practices unknown to the biblical text raises serious questions about the prophetic authenticity of those who introduced them.

Brigham Young’s Adam-God doctrine and racial priesthood teachings further complicate matters. These doctrines were taught as revelatory truth but have since been rejected. If prophets can introduce major doctrinal errors while claiming divine authority, the entire system of trusting prophetic pronouncements becomes unreliable. The LDS response that prophets sometimes share personal opinions rather than revelation provides no practical guidance for distinguishing the two categories in real time.

The Relationship Between Prophets and Scripture

Old Testament prophets stood under the authority of prior revelation, particularly the Torah. They called Israel back to what God had already revealed rather than introducing fundamentally new doctrines. Even when prophets received new revelations about the future, these revelations built upon and confirmed the existing covenant rather than replacing or substantially altering it.

By contrast, LDS prophets claim authority to introduce new scriptures (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price), new ordinances (temple ceremonies unknown to the biblical text), and new doctrines (plurality of gods, eternal progression, celestial marriage). These do not merely apply existing revelation to new circumstances but fundamentally expand the content of what must be believed for salvation. This represents a categorically different relationship between prophet and Scripture than what we observe in the biblical pattern.

Traditional Christianity affirms the sufficiency of Scripture—that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and godliness (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3). This does not eliminate the need for teachers, preachers, and church leaders, but it does establish Scripture as the final authority by which all teaching must be judged. The Bereans were commended for testing Paul’s teaching against Scripture (Acts 17:11). When LDS teaching contradicts biblical teaching, the question becomes which authority takes precedence—and traditional Christianity answers unequivocally that Scripture judges prophetic claims, not the reverse.

Contemporary Implications and Observations

The Question of Prophetic Fallibility

Contemporary LDS apologetics has increasingly acknowledged that prophets can make mistakes. Jeff Lindsay, a noted LDS apologist, has written about prophetic fallibility, acknowledging that LDS prophets have erred while maintaining that they still hold genuine prophetic authority. This represents a more nuanced position than earlier absolutist claims but creates its own difficulties.

The challenge is practical: if prophets can make mistakes—even significant doctrinal mistakes like Brigham Young’s Adam-God teaching—how can followers determine when to trust prophetic pronouncements? The answer that the current prophet’s teachings supersede past prophets’ teachings provides temporary clarity but undermines confidence in any particular teaching, since future prophets may reverse current positions as current prophets have reversed past positions.

The 1978 reversal of the priesthood and temple ban for people of African descent illustrates this dilemma. If previous prophets were wrong about this significant matter—and recent LDS statements characterize the ban as stemming from racism rather than revelation—then previous prophets taught and enforced false doctrine as though it were a divine mandate. This occurred not in peripheral matters but in questions directly affecting salvation (temple ordinances were denied to Black members). The acknowledgment of such a significant error should, from a traditional Christian perspective, raise serious questions about the reliability of other supposedly revealed teachings.

The Nature of Testimony and Evidence

LDS members are encouraged to gain a personal testimony of prophetic authority through prayer and spiritual witness. As Seeking-Christ.com and other sources note, trust in prophets is meant to flow from personal spiritual experience rather than merely external evidence. This epistemological approach prioritizes subjective spiritual confirmation over historical and theological analysis.

From a traditional Christian perspective, this approach inverts the biblical pattern. Scripture presents historical evidence and fulfilled prophecy as reasons for belief, then calls for faith based on that evidence. Jesus appealed to His works as evidence of His identity (John 10:25, 38). The apostles appealed to eyewitness testimony of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Personal spiritual experience confirms what evidence establishes rather than substituting for evidence.

The reliance on subjective spiritual confirmation creates vulnerability to deception. Many religions and movements—from aberrant groups like the Branch Davidians under David Koresh to the Peoples Temple led by Jim Jones—generate powerful spiritual experiences in their adherents, often through intense prayers and feelings that followers mistake for divine endorsement. These “confirmations” have justified psychological manipulation, isolation, and even mass tragedy, as devotees felt an inner “burning” or peace affirming their leader’s claims. Moroni’s promise (Moroni 10:4) that God will confirm the truth of the Book of Mormon through prayer assumes that such spiritual feelings constitute reliable evidence of truth. Yet similar prayers and feelings have led people into contradictory religious commitments. A more reliable epistemology would examine claims against Scripture and historical evidence before seeking spiritual confirmation.

Additional Considerations and Final Reflections

The Role of Institutional Authority

One significant difference between biblical prophets and LDS prophets concerns the institutional context of their ministry. Biblical prophets typically emerged from outside established religious structures. They were shepherds (Amos), priests called to prophetic ministry (Ezekiel, Jeremiah), or individuals from various walks of life who received an unexpected divine commission. Their authority derived directly from God’s call, not from institutional appointment or ecclesiastical succession.

By contrast, LDS prophets emerge through institutional succession, with presidents and apostles drawn not from theological training but from a variety of secular professions—such as business executives, lawyers, doctors, and educators—lacking formal seminary education or doctrinal credentials. The president of the Church is always the senior apostle by ordination date, creating a predictable pattern of succession based on longevity rather than any evident divine selection. This system, while providing stability and avoiding succession crises, differs markedly from the biblical pattern where God’s choice of prophets was often surprising and unpredictable. God chose David, the youngest son; Amos, a herdsman with no prophetic pedigree; and Saul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the Church. The institutional predictability of LDS prophetic succession raises questions about whether divine selection is truly operative.

Furthermore, the institutional nature of LDS prophetic authority creates dynamics that biblical prophets did not face. Biblical prophets often stood against institutional religion, challenging the priests and established leaders of their day. LDS prophets, as heads of the institutional Church, cannot occupy this counter-cultural position. When prophets and institutions are identical, the prophetic function of challenging established religion becomes impossible. This structural difference represents a significant departure from the biblical prophetic model.

The Question of Revelation and Canonization

Traditional Christianity holds that the canon of Scripture closed with the apostolic age. The books of the Bible represent the authoritative record of God’s revelation culminating in Jesus Christ. This closed canon provides an objective standard by which all subsequent teaching can be measured. New teachings either accord with Scripture or contradict it; Scripture serves as the unchanging reference point for theological truth.

The LDS approach to ongoing revelation creates a fundamentally different epistemological situation. With new scriptures possible and prophetic pronouncements carrying potential canonical weight, there exists no fixed standard by which to evaluate truth claims. When a current prophet can override or reinterpret previous prophetic statements, authority becomes entirely contemporary and subjective. What is true today may not be true tomorrow if the prophet receives a new revelation.

This dynamic has played out repeatedly in LDS history. The practice of plural marriage, once taught as essential for the highest degree of celestial glory, was discontinued under threat of government action. The priesthood and temple ban for people of African descent, taught by multiple prophets as a divine mandate, was reversed in 1978. The temple ceremony itself has undergone multiple revisions. Each change is presented as an ongoing revelation, but the cumulative effect undermines confidence in any particular teaching’s permanence or truthfulness.

The Sufficiency of Christ and Scripture

At the heart of the traditional Christian critique of LDS prophetic claims lies the sufficiency of Jesus Christ and the Scriptures that testify of Him. The author of Hebrews declares that in these last days, God has spoken to us “by His Son” (Hebrews 1:2). Jesus is not merely another prophet in a succession of prophets but the final, complete, and perfect revelation of God. “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” (Hebrews 1:3 ESV). Nothing more needs to be revealed about God’s character, purposes, or plan of salvation because Jesus has revealed them completely.

Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote that the Scriptures are “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” and are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:15-17 ESV). If Scripture makes believers complete and equipped for every good work, what could additional scriptures or prophetic revelations add? The claim that additional revelation is necessary implicitly denies the sufficiency of what God has already revealed in Christ and Scripture.

Peter similarly testified that God’s “divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence.” (2 Peter 1:3 ESV). The “all things” needed for life and godliness have already been granted through knowledge of Christ as revealed in Scripture. The LDS claim that additional ordinances, additional scriptures, and additional prophetic guidance are necessary for salvation contradicts this apostolic testimony about the completeness of what we have already received in Christ.

Conclusion

The question of whether LDS prophets speak for God cannot be answered by examining their sincerity, their apparent fruits, or the experiences of their followers alone. The biblical standard for prophetic authentication includes predictive accuracy and doctrinal consistency with prior revelation. When these standards are applied to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and their successors, significant concerns emerge.

Multiple prophecies attributed to Joseph Smith have not been fulfilled as stated. While LDS apologists offer various explanations, these explanations often require reading conditions into unconditional statements or interpreting specific predictions in ways that their original hearers would not have recognized. The biblical test in Deuteronomy 18 appears more straightforward than such interpretive maneuvers allow.

More fundamentally, LDS prophets have introduced doctrines that contradict the biblical revelation about God’s nature, humanity’s destiny, and the way of salvation. If Deuteronomy 13 establishes doctrinal consistency as a test of authentic prophecy, these introductions of new and contrary doctrines disqualify those who introduced them from recognition as true prophets, regardless of any apparently successful predictions or spiritual experiences that accompanied their ministry.

The LDS acknowledgment that prophets can make mistakes—even significant doctrinal mistakes—further complicates the claim that prophets cannot lead the Church astray. If Brigham Young’s Adam-God doctrine represented leading the Church astray doctrinally, the categorical promise of prophetic reliability fails. If it did not represent leading astray, the standard for what constitutes “leading astray” becomes so high as to be practically meaningless.

Traditional Christianity affirms that God’s final and complete revelation came in Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament. The prophetic office found its fulfillment in Christ, who is Himself the Prophet, Priest, and King of whom all others were shadows. While God continues to guide His Church through gifted teachers, preachers, and leaders, these servants stand under the authority of Scripture rather than claiming authority to add to it. The test for all teaching remains whether it accords with the apostolic deposit once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

In love for our Latter-day Saint neighbors and with respect for their sincere faith, traditional Christians must nonetheless conclude that the claims of LDS prophets do not meet the biblical standard for prophetic authentication. The failed prophecies, the doctrinal innovations, and the ongoing revisions of supposedly revealed truth all point away from authentic prophetic office as the Bible defines it. The invitation to all people remains what it has always been: to trust in the finished work of Christ as revealed in Scripture, to test all teaching by that Scripture, and to find in Jesus alone the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Supporting Resources:

• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/ie/beliefs/church-of-jesus-christ/god-speaks-through-prophets
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-howard-w-hunter/chapter-7-continuous-revelation-through-living-prophets?lang=eng
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-9-prophets-of-god?lang=eng
• https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/1673fk1/do_modern_lds_prophets_actually_hear_god_as/
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church?lang=eng
• https://seeking-christ.com/2021/01/24/trust-the-prophets-of-god/
• https://saintsunscripted.com/faith-and-beliefs/the-restoration-of-christs-church/do-prophets-literally-talk-with-god/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecies_attributed_to_Joseph_Smith
• https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/can-we-trust-the-prophecies-of-joseph-smith/
• https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Alleged_false_prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith
• https://mit.irr.org/failed-prophecies-of-joseph-smith
• https://windowwalker.podbean.com/e/the-test-of-a-prophet/
• https://ellenwhite.org/faq/18
• https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/8vkwwd/even_from_a_tbm_point_of_view_brigham_young_was_a/
• https://bhroberts.org/records/06h81W-tOWvOb/brigham_acknowledges_that_prophets_and_apostles_himself_included_can_make_mistakes_qualifies_this_by_stating_that_he_will_not_be_able_to_lead_the_church_astray
• https://askgramps.org/brigham-young-didnt-think-prophet/
• https://www.jefflindsay.com/fallible.shtml
• https://davidjeremiah.blog/who-were-the-old-testament-prophets/
• https://overviewbible.com/prophets/
• https://davidjeremiah.blog/understanding-old-and-new-testament-prophecy/