Jesus Never Said There Wouldn’t Be Any More Prophets

Sometimes it boggles my mind to think I used to traverse the snowy streets of Michigan talking to people about prophets. Was I crazy? Am I still crazy?

Day in and day out…I’d knock on someones door or stop them in the streets and say something to the effect of, “would you like to hear a message about Jesus Christ”? If on the off chance they’d say “yes”…I’d immediately light up and then start telling them about prophets.

“Wait a minute!” the people would protest… “you said you were going to share a message about Christ.”

“I am!” I’d exclaim…and then I’d ask… “would any of us ever know anything about Christ without prophets first revealing Him to us?”

“I don’t want to hear anything about prophets” they’d say. “There were no more prophets after Christ. We don’t need anymore prophets because Christ left us the Bible and the Holy Ghost.”

The door would begin to slam shut and then I’d ask to share a quick scripture out of the Bible.

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it…it is folly and shame unto him (Proverbs 18:13)

That scripture softened hearts…the door would slowly open back up… and we’d have a few minutes to share what so many of us have traveled thousands of miles around the globe to share.

The message is this;

1280px-Edward_Lear_-_Jerusalem_from_the_Mount_of_Olives_-_Google_Art_Project

There are living prophets in the land again. Those prophets have come in these last days to testify of Jesus Christ and to lay down any contention over who He is. After almost 1700 years of confusion and darkness, those living prophets have revealed and restored a true knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ back on to the earth. Because of those prophets…we can now know who it is we’re worshipping and how it is we’re supposed to worship Him.

Without prophets…we’d be left to our own philosophical speculations about God.

Is He a man or a God?

Does He have a body right now or did He turn into a spirit essence?

Is He three beings or one?

Is baptism required for salvation or is it ancillary. If it’s ancillary…then why do we do it. If it’s required as it states in John 3:3-5 then that is an action…and does that therefore mean our works are required for salvation as well?

Do we need to repent to be saved or is a verbal confession enough?

We could go on for days…

But seriously….hasn’t God always worked through prophets? Doesn’t it say in Amos that the “Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7)

If that scripture is true…then why would anyone in this world not greet the idea of a modern prophet with excitement and curiosity? Could it be true? Was there ever a time in the history of this world in which a prophet was needed more than in our day?


Throughout recorded history, God has always sent prophets to “restore” a knowledge of the gospel back to the earth. Amos also said that “People will stagger from sea to sea and wander from north to east, searching for the word of the Lordbut they will not find it.” (Amos 8:11-12) Pretty much…you could search the entire earth for the gospel of God and no matter how hard you search…if there is no prophet on the earth…you won’t find it. No one ever just “figured out” the will of God without it being reveled to them first through prophets.

So a basic fact exists. You cannot accept Christ without first accepting His prophets. It’s a logical impossibility. We would have no clue who Christ is without the teachings of the prophets. It would be crazy to say that we accept and believe in Christ while simultaneously rejecting the witness of John the Baptist.

After Christ absolutely goes off on the scribes and Pharisees about accepting dead prophets and rejecting living prophets…He says these important words about prophets that’ll be sent in the future;

Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matt 23:39)

Translation from Old English: “You cannot see me or know me until you accept the prophets that I sent to you.”

I can imagine that one of the things that frustrates Jesus the most is when he sends one of His servants to teach His people and then they reject them. I can imagine Him placing His hand on His head and saying something similar to what He said as He viewed the condition of Israel at the time;

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matt 23:37)

This pattern of God sending prophets to His children has been going on for thousands of years. It started with Adam. He was rejected. He sent Noah, and Abraham, and Moses. They were rejected. Prophets were sent to people in the American continent. Rejected.

The people would say in every age…”We have prophets. We don’t need more prophets.”

But its obvious that we do need prophets.


Roger Williams…the founder of the baptist church in America might have articulated this point best. Cotton Mather said, “Mr. Williams [finally] told [his followers] ‘that being himself misled, he had [misled them,’ and] he was now satisfied williamsthat there was none upon earth that could administer baptism [or any of the ordinances of the gospel], … [so] he advised them therefore to forego all … and wait for the coming of new apostles.”

Do you remember when Jesus told us to “beware of false prophets” that would come after His time? Think about the unseen implication of this statement from the Savior. Jesus never said there wouldn’t be anymore prophets. If there weren’t going to be anymore prophets…He would have said “there will not be anymore prophets”. In His warning alone…there is an implied promise that prophets will indeed come on to the scene after He’s gone. He just wants us to beware of the false prophets.

And so He leaves us with maybe one of the most important pieces of advice He can give; “Ye shall know them by their fruits”.

Does this sound crazy?

It’s scriptural.

So when someone tells you that there’s no need for prophets in our day…introduce them to a few whose fruits are worthy of careful consideration.


Facebook Comments

Post Comments

  • Vai

    which mission in michigan did you serve?

  • Alex Eisenberg

    I want to believe in Prophets Greg, however there’s so many examples of men calling themselves Prophets, who transform Jesus Christ and his gospel into a franchise, and sell it like a product! Con men who deceive, using magic stones to “translate” ancient books putting their faces in a hat! Yes, even convicted con men, according courts of law files in New York! Are we to believe God can tell everyone something through scripture and then tell the opposite in secret to His Prophet? Also believe in racist doctrines? It’s hard for me to believe in that kind of Prophets!

  • Broken bose

    In Mark 12:6, it says

    “Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.“

    And in Matthew 21:37

    “But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.”

    And in Matthew 16:18, it says

    “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

    Scripture indicates that Christ would be the last one sent. If others were sent after Christ, it could only be for one reason–to restore the failed House built upon the foundation of Christ and His apostles.

    And if Christ failed to build His house upon a sure foundation, then He is the foolish man spoken of in Matthew 7:24, who built on sand, and whose house fell when adversity struck.

    So if another prophet is necessary to do what Christ failed to do, then that prophet must be greater than Christ, in at least one of two ways:

    He did what Christ WOULDN’T do (keep a church), making him better than Christ; or he did what Christ COULDN’T do (again to keep a church), making him greater than Christ. Or both. But in either situation, the admission that another major prophet was necessary is only because Christ must be deficient in at least one of these two areas–Christ was either less great, or less good than the prophet who succeeded Him. There really is no other reasonable conclusion you can draw.

    Now I know this seems extreme, but there is at least one person who agrees with the above claims:

    Address of the Prophet [Joseph Smith] —His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo.
    (Sunday, May 26, 1844)

    “Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go.”

    Isn’t the very existence of the LDS Church an admission of Christ’s deficiencies, since He couldn’t keep a church, and an admission of Smith’s greater character, since he could? Why not?

    • Ender Wiggin

      There’s no justification to declare Christ a failure because his followers were unable to stay the course. Disciples, even men chosen by Christ himself buckled under pressure. Take the Israelites, God’s chosen people, who, after being successfully rescued from the most powerful nation on earth (Egyptians) and after witnessing the plagues and watching the Red Sea part while they walked through on dry land (surely one of the most miraculous events in the Bible), being led and protected by God’s prophet, still fell away back to the worshipping of idols, all while Moses was getting the Law from God. Does their lack of faith and their return to idol worshipping somehow make God a failure?
      Take the original Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. After being personally called by the Savior himself, and being instructed by Christ and witnessing countless miracles, all fell away when Christ was taken. Peter who was chiefest among them, denying knowing Christ himself. Does this make Christ a failure because those closest him abandoned and denied him? No, the weakness and failures of men do not reflect on the greatness of the mission and Atonement of Christ. The congregations of the New Testament were chastised by Paul and John and Peter for their weakness and apostasy. Does the apostasy of members of the original church weaken the position and correctness of the church’s authority? No. Neither does the Great Apostasy of the church away from the organization set up by Christ weaken or cast doubt on the need for that church to again be restored to the earth in these days. The weakness of man’s discipleship does not cast doubt on the validity of the principles of the Gospel of Christ.

      Who has more place to boast of their accomplishments throughout their life than Joseph Smith? At the age of 14 he saw God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ! His persecution began there and did not cease his whole life, yet he remained true and steadfast to his calling. He brought forth, and translated by the power of God, the Book of Mormon which stands as another witness of Christ and scripture in like standing with the Bible which has now spread across the world in millions of copies and 82 languages. He restored the Church of Jesus Christ with all the authority granted to act in God’s name on the earth received from heavenly messengers Peter, James, and John, John the Baptist, and Elijah. He led his people through constant tribulation and persecution that would harrow even the most valiant of believers, yet he never once denied his calling or experiences. His life and accomplishments began in humble circumstances but far surpassed his beginnings, and his name is known to all ends of the world. Who else in the history of the world has done more for humanity than Joseph Smith, save Christ himself? Who has more justification to boast?

      As Greg said, nowhere in the Bible does it say there would be no more prophets. Your scriptures reference Christ speaking in parable about his role as the Son of God (in two separate accounts of the same parable). Nowhere is it claimed that a prophet is “better” than Christ. That’s absurd. He’s the Son of God. But, again as Greg said, nowhere does it claim that prophets are to be done away with, or that God has no more to say to his children since the Bible. That is an incorrect, and unfounded assumption made by mainstream Christianity.

      • Broken bose

        Hey Ender!

        Here’s Joseph Smith’s quote again:

        Address of the Prophet [Joseph Smith] —His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo.
        (Sunday, May 26, 1844)

        “Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go.”

        Here’s a question:

        When Joseph Smith says in the above quote that he has more to boast of than any man, does that really include Christ? If it doesn’t, then why did Smith say that it did?

        If the Church was started by Christ who is greater than Smith, then why was Smith necessary to complete the work of Christ and the building of His Church? Was Christ insufficient for the job? Perhaps the free agency of men prevented Christ’s Church from being preserved. But if that were true, then why was Smith able to do what Christ couldn’t? Didn’t he also have the free agency of men to contend with (in arguably more evil times)? Doesn’t this make Smith the greater of the two by being able to keep a church where Christ couldn’t (just as Smith said)?

        If Christ’s Church failed, isn’t it just an admission that the faults of men were greater than Christ’s ability to fulfill His promise in Matt. 16:18, when He said that His Church would never fail? Wouldn’t we be truly left as orphans (John 14:18) if Christ’s House (1 Tim. 3:15) was destroyed?

        If Christ picked the wrong disciples which led to to an Apostasy, but Joseph Smith picked the right ones so that the restored Church under Smith never fell, then Smith is at least wiser (and therefore greater) than Christ, no?

        Let me make another point here: the entire revelation of the New Testament and Christ’s suffering, death, and atonement was to establish His Church on earth for all to come to the knowledge of Him and His atoning love for us. Therefore, if the Church failed, then it isn’t just the apostles who failed, it is Christ Himself who failed. Or what did Paul mean when he called the Church, the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27)?

        I’ve brought this up in other posts the parable Christ tells of the wise man in Matthew 7:24, who built his house on a foundation of rock, so that all adversities could not destroy it. The foolish man in the parable built his house on sand, and when adversity struck–great was the destruction of this man’s house. So if the Church is Christ’s House as it says in 1 Timothy 3:15, and it fell–doesn’t this really mean that Christ was the foolish man mentioned in the parable in Matthew 7:24?

        I think it’s a point worth mentioning that just a few chapters later in Matthew 16, Christ calls Peter the rock on which He would build His Church (which is His House again, according to 1 Timothy 3:15), and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But if His House failed, then this verse is untrue, and Christ is either wrong, or a liar.

        Joseph Smith then would indeed be the greater prophet.

        Now to answer your specific point concerning his apostles fleeing in the garden. I don’t believe an analogy follows between his disciples fleeing for fear of the Roman centurions and a complete apostasy where all leave because they voluntarily deny Christ’s truth. In any case, John, Christ’s mother, and Mary Magdalene remained with Him until he died on the cross. They didn’t leave. And with the other examples you mentioned, there’s a difference between a complete apostasy when all leave, than when only some do. If there wasn’t a complete apostasy then it means some faithful remained.

        1 Tim 4:1

        “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils”

        What’s the word missing in this verse when speaking of the complete Apostasy?

        That word is: ALL.

        If Paul meant ‘all’ would fall away, shouldn’t he have said ‘all’? But because he said only ‘some’ would fall away, doesn’t that mean that there were some faithful left? And how would these faithful preserve their faith if there wasn’t a Church to protect the truth they possessed?

        In any case, you’re using the Bible here in order to show that a complete apostasy DID take place, and that involves a contradiction. Because if the Bible is true, then it must have been preserved by an authority that could tell the difference between what was true and what wasn’t. And since the LDS Church stipulates to that authority by accepting the Bible, it can only mean that a complete apostasy did not take place.

        And if an apostasy did not take place, then there wasn’t a need for a restoration, or another prophet. Christ is indeed sufficient.

        The only way that the LDS Church can exist then is if Christ was Himself insufficient to complete the task given to Him by His Father: to keep all those whom His Father had given to Him.

        John 6:37

        “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

        If Christ’s Church fell, then He has already cast them out because He failed to provide for them a house to take refuge in. If the faithful in Noah’s time could take refuge in the ark amidst the raging storm, then in Christ’s time they should be able to take refuge in the new ark of Christ’s Church, since Christ is greater than Noah or Smith.

        Forgive me for saying, but it is the LDS Church that says that Christ was the foolish builder. Why else would the House of Christ need to be restored?

    • Dmoss

      Christ’s gospel has not failed. If you watch the Prophets of the LDS faith in conference or speaking in person, you may see why and how they are here to prophesy of Christ. Reading the Book of Mormon and seeing how it speaks of and reverences Christ is also best if you want to learn more about this religion, it’s Prophets and Christ.
      Reading and listening to all of this anti-LDS jargon that is so convoluted and most of the time, making no sense is not the way.
      Discover the LDS religion by looking in the right places, such as lds.org, then decide for yourself…..don’t let others decide for you.

      • Broken bose

        Dmos, thanks for your response. Let’s continue the discussion.

        You said in your response that Christ’s Gospel has not failed.

        However, the need for a restoration means something that Christ began must have failed. What was it? If it was His Church that failed, then what authority guarantees that His gospel didn’t? And how would you know?

        1 Tim 3:15 says:

        “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

        So if His Church failed, which is the pillar and ground of truth, then the survival of His gospel message it would seem, is by no means guaranteed. So how did you come to believe in the gospel then, without a Church or valid authority to tell you it was true?

        What promise did Christ give that guaranteed the survival of His gospel but not His Church?

        Remember that the Bible existed prior to the establishment of the LDS Church (and after the Apostles died). How do we know it came from Christ if the authority of His Church that guaranteed it’s truth was destroyed?

        More to the point: Why did the LDS Church accept the Bible?

        If your answer is that you have a testimony that it is true, then frankly you’ve just testified that the Catholic Church, which gave you the Bible in the late fourth century, is a true authority (or how would they know? There were literally hundred of epistles and books to choose from then).

        So why would we need the LDS Church?

        I’m asking not to be offensive, but am sincerely curious what your answers would be to the above questions. Thank you.

        God bless you…

        • Dmoss

          I believe that many great and important things have been corrupted by many churches, and that many churches have great attributes. I believe that God wants his word to be his and not mans words. The LDS doctrine is God’s word in these last days. If you study it from its own interpretation and roots you will see this. Not from disbelievers or dissenters views. This is all I ever need to say. If you choose not to study and learn it that is your choice and that is God’s way. My best wishes to you.

          • Broken bose

            Dmos, where’s your evidence of an apostasy?

      • BringEm_Young

        Christ and His words have never failed anyone. The Prophets (or whatever you want to call them) are PHONY and know what to say at the right time, for you to believe in them. If they slip up, they have to recant what they say (or said), and get you to think in their favor again. The Book of Mormon was falsely written from the Holy Bible. Its a mockery of religion, as Jesus had wanted it. Have you really read the history of how the Mormon Church got started? What Brigham Young really did to start the church? Mormonism and LDS and everything about it is a SHAM!! Read the TRUE history of your cult and see if its true or false for yourself.

    • Immatellnu

      was this in the first version or one of the subsequent revisions of the book of mormon?

  • Pingback: Jesus sa aldrig att där inte skulle komma fler profeter | Mormonlady & Friends()

  • Carol

    Greg–I found this quote today and it made me think of your post:

    “We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain: but to say that God never said anything more to man than is there recorded, would be saying at once that we have at last received a revelation: for it must require one to advance thus far, because it is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God, that He would not, after giving what is there contained, speak again; and if any man has found out for a fact that the Bible contains all that God ever revealed to man he has ascertained it by an immediate revelation, other than has been previously written by the prophets and apostles.” –Joseph Smith (As cited in Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol 1, by McConkie/Millett.

    That is a very good argument! Since it doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that God would never again speak to His people, then to say that there is no additional scripture, or no need for additional prophets, is to say that somehow, somewhere that has been revealed to someone–requiring a prophet.

    • Andrew

      I personally would Disagree, I would interpret Revelation 22:18 to mean that the Bible is the complete and and whole truth of God, lacking nothing. “Revelation 22:18 NKJV
      [18] For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book”. I believe that this marks the end of all divine revelations for scripture. God may have never said that he would never speak to his people again, but 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all script is inspired by God. And John in Revelations (who was inspired by The Holy Spirit) said that no one may add to scripture. This is the 3rd to last verse in the entire bible, I believe that the Holy Spirt inspired John to put it here to make the Bible as being complete.

  • Helen

    But.. why do a God of flesh and blood give birth to spirit babies only? Why are they not born with a body?

  • omarzaff

    Hi I m muslim but i do study some other books for reference. For muslim its easy and clearer because we believe from Adam until Muhammad including Jesus.. all prophets preach the same religion from the same God. Prophets or messenger are sent when people start to lose the correct guidance and follows their desire. Those who study deeper will find that there are about 124,000 messenger with title Nabi and about 313 are with title Rasul and as muslim we need to know the 25 most prominent which includes adam, moses, abraham, david, jesus until the last one Muhammad. The orthodox christian and a lot similar to islam. Islam believes in Quran and its only written in Arabic and translation are in many other languages, when ther is discrepencies the Arabic Quran will be referred.
    What i m writting here is because i see there are so many different version of bible. I am questioning why there are so many version of bible for christian and wouldnt christian itself also should be asking … and which would be the correct one or when there are differences where do we refer to?

  • Broken bose

    Yanick, thank you for your reply on disqus. My apologies for not noticing your reply sooner. I not sure if I received any notification, which is frustrating.

    In any case, the context of the question that I asked awhile back, made it clear that I was speaking of a Total or Great Apostasy, so that a Restoration of the Church would be necessary to bring Christ’s authority back into the world. Nothing in your reply frankly has shown me that a total or “formal” apostasy had actually taken place. And that is because in each of your citations, a total apostasy is simply assumed–it isn’t made explicit. There’s also a single word missing in each of them.

    That word is “all”.

    If an apostasy had taken place where everyone fell away, then shouldn’t any of those verses mentioned say that “all” had indeed fallen away? But none do. And try as you might, you won’t find any that will say that. Isaiah does not say that a total apostasy will take place either. And there’s a good reason why none do. It’s because you’re citing from the Bible itself that makes the contention that a total apostasy had taken place frankly impossible. That’s because if a total apostasy had occurred, there would be no Bible to cite from, since no authority would have survived to vouch for the Bible’s truthfulness, or authority. Therefore, the Bible is true precisely because the notion of a total apostasy is not true.

    Yet, isn’t that the reason why the LDS Church exists? What does this say then about the validity of the LDS Church?

    God bless you, and I looking forward to your next reply.

  • Broken bose

    Yanick, thank you for your reply on disqus. My apologies for not noticing your reply sooner. I’m not sure if I received any notification, which is frustrating.

    In any case, the context of the question that I asked awhile back, made it clear that I was speaking of a Total or Great Apostasy, so that a Restoration of the Church would be necessary to bring Christ’s authority back into the world. Nothing in your reply frankly has shown me that a total or “formal” apostasy had actually taken place. And that is because in each of your citations, a total apostasy is simply assumed–it isn’t made explicit. There’s also a single word missing in each of them.

    That word is “all”.

    If an apostasy had taken place where everyone fell away, then shouldn’t any of those verses mentioned say that “all” had indeed fallen away? But none do. And try as you might, you won’t find any that will say that. Isaiah does not say that a total apostasy will take place either. And there’s a good reason why none do. It’s because you’re citing from the Bible itself that makes the contention that a total apostasy had taken place frankly impossible. That’s because if a total apostasy had occurred, there would be no Bible to cite from, since no authority would have survived to vouch for the Bible’s truthfulness, or authority. Therefore, the Bible is true precisely because the notion of a total apostasy is not true.

    Yet, isn’t that the reason why the LDS Church exists? What does this say then about the validity of the LDS Church?

    God bless you, and I looking forward to your next reply.