Why D&C 107:64–65 still matters
Latter-day Saints commonly speak of the President of the Church as “the prophet.” The phrase is affectionate, familiar, and now almost automatic. It is also not the title Class 1 scripture gives him.
That is not a small vocabulary problem. It changes what people think a prophet is, what they expect from the President of the Church, and whether the gift of prophecy still belongs to the body of the Saints.
The canon is not flat
The papers on this site use a simple source hierarchy, drawn from patterns already in the scriptures and from Joseph F. Smith’s 1897 standard when later commentary conflicted with revelation:
- Class 1: the Lord’s own voice—“saith the Lord,” or equivalent direct command.
- Class 2: a messenger’s account of a vision or revelation.
- Class 3: commentary, counsel, custom, and later synthesis.
Class 3 material can be useful. It is not the standard when it collides with Class 1. The present question is exactly that kind of collision. The Lord named the office. Later usage renamed it.
What the revelation actually says
Doctrine and Covenants 107 is presented as revelation. In verses 64–66 the Lord says that one must be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside, “and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church; or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.”
That is a Class 1 title. It is not a suggestion. It is not public-relations language. It is the name of the office.
The same section also describes other officers by priesthood function: presidents of quorums, bishops, and so on. The pattern is consistent. The Church’s presiding officer is a high priest who presides. He is not given the exclusive personal title “the Prophet” in that revelation.
If we take Class 1 as the standard, the ordinary speech of the Church should follow D&C 107:64–65.
The older convention
The Bible already had a way of speaking about this.
A prophet was a person sent to speak for God. Samuel heard the Lord when “the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision” (1 Samuel 3). He was not Eli. Eli was the high priest. Samuel received a call outside that office and was therefore called a prophet.
A high priest held an ordained office. In some periods that office was associated with the gift of prophecy. John’s Gospel records that Caiaphas, “being high priest that year,” spoke a word that the narrator treats as prophecy (John 11:49–51). The point is not that Caiaphas was righteous. The point is the old assumption: the high priest might prophesy by virtue of the office. When that happened, scripture still called him high priest.
The convention is therefore fairly simple:
- If the gift arrived through priestly office, the person kept the priesthood title.
- If the call arrived outside that office, the person was called a prophet.
Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Anna, and Agabus are prophets. Aaron, Eli, and Caiaphas are high priests. The two functions can meet in one person. They are not the same word.
Joseph Smith fits the older pattern of a prophet. He reported visions, dictations, and “saith the Lord” revelations. He also became the presiding officer of the restored Church. Those are two facts, not one title. Later presidents inherited the office of Presiding High Priest. They did not inherit Joseph’s mode of receiving and publishing canonized revelation as a regular practice. Speaking as a shepherd out of stewardship is real work. It is not the same thing as the Joseph Smith pattern that investigators first learn.
The gift was never meant to be an exclusive brand
Joel said the Lord’s Spirit would be poured out and “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy… your old men shall dream dreams” (Joel 2:28). Peter said that promise had begun to be fulfilled (Acts 2). Paul told the Corinthian church to desire spiritual gifts, “but rather that ye may prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:1). He treated prophecy as a gift that could be sought and exercised in the congregation, subject to order and testing.
Class 1 and Class 2 texts therefore point in two directions at once:
There is a presiding high priest over the Church.
The gift of prophecy is not confined to that one man.
If “prophet” is reserved as a unique brand name for the President of the Church, both truths are damaged. The office is misnamed. The gift is made to look rare, official, and closed.
That is the opposite of Acts 2.
Why the renamed title causes confusion
Non-members and new members usually meet Joseph Smith first. They hear that a fourteen-year-old asked God, received a vision, and later dictated revelations. “Prophet,” in that story, means what it meant in Samuel’s story: a person who receives and delivers the word of the Lord.
Then they enter the modern Church and hear that “the prophet” is the current President. They reasonably expect the same mode: dictation, “saith the Lord,” frequent addition to the canon. What they usually hear instead is counsel, conference addresses, proclamations, and stewardship. Those things may be inspired. They are still, in the language of this site, Class 3 unless they bear the marks of Class 1 or Class 2 and are received as canon.
The mismatch is not mysterious. The Church has kept the biblical word and changed the office underneath it. Members then have to perform a quiet redefinition: “prophet” now means “the man who holds the keys and presides,” not “one who prophesies.” Investigators are not told that the definition changed. They only feel the gap.
There is a second confusion inside the Church. If only one living person is “the prophet,” then sons and daughters who prophesy become an embarrassment. Dreams and impressions have to be fenced off as private and unofficial. Paul’s counsel becomes hard to read aloud. The title that should have remained common becomes a monopoly.
Class 3 custom is not a small thing here
Calling the President “the prophet” is Class 3 custom. It is later usage. It is widespread. It is not D&C 107.
Class 3 custom has power because it trains the ear. Once the ear is trained, members hear every presidential statement as if it were Class 1. That is how commentary begins to sit on top of canon. The papers on Adam-God and divine sonship exist because that habit has already done damage. A later synthesis was treated as if it had the same weight as “saith the Lord.” The cure is not contempt for leaders. The cure is to put the titles back where the revelation put them.
The President of the High Priesthood may prophesy. He may receive revelation for the Church. If he does, the Church has a way to recognize it: the voice of the Lord, a clear revelatory account, and the consent of the Church when it is to become canon. None of that requires us to rename the office.
What following D&C 107:64–65 would look like
It would look surprisingly modest.
- In teaching and writing, call the presiding officer what the Lord called him: President of the High Priesthood, or Presiding High Priest.
- Use “President [Name]” as the ordinary public form.
- Use “prophet” for the gift and the function, not as a personal brand. Joseph was a prophet. Others may prophesy. The President may do both. The office name remains the office name.
- Teach investigators the difference early: Joseph’s prophetic call is one thing; succession in the presiding high priesthood is another.
- Leave room for Joel and Acts. If the Spirit is poured out, sons and daughters will prophesy. That should not sound like a threat to the President. It should sound like the Church working as promised.
This does not reduce the President’s keys. D&C 107 gives him presidency over the priesthood. It does not give later generations permission to collapse every biblical word for revelation into that one chair.
The real issue
The question is not whether the Church has a living head. It does. The question is whether we will let Class 3 familiarity overwrite a Class 1 command.
D&C 107:64–65 is not obscure. It is not metaphorical. It tells the Church what to call the man appointed to preside. When members instead say “the prophet,” they are not being more faithful than the revelation. They are using a different dictionary.
A Church that hopes for more revelation should want the old words back. “President of the High Priesthood” protects the office. “Prophet” protects the gift. Keeping them distinct is not a loss of reverence. It is obedience to the text that named the office in the first place.
Have they not read the scriptures?