403 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

In another thread, Charles Dowis argued (as he often does) that orthodox Christianity made a serious mistake by replacing “prophets” with “theologians” and “scholars.” Supposedly, unfaithful Christians advanced the darkness of the Great Apostasy by rejecting living prophets in favor of intellectual analysis of the dead words on the page of the Bible. Charles is so glad that the Restoration has brought the living voice of God back into the world to guide the faithful and settle all doctrinal disputes with a “thus saith.” He speaks in glowing terms of his church having something we evangelicals don’t have—someone who could say, “I have seen.”

  The dirty little secret is that the contemporary LDS Church has replaced prophets with bureaucrats—men who obtain their position by working their way up the ladder, something much more of a seniority system than a spirit-driven system. The combined ages of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young on the dates they took office as LDS Church President and “Prophet” was 70 (Joseph was 24, Brigham 46; thus, their average age was 35). The average age of the next seven presidents at taking office was 73 (ranging between 62 and 82), while the average age of the most recent seven presidents at taking office was 83 (ranging between 73 and 93). The average age of the President of the Church, his two Counselors, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is 75. These are all supposedly “apostles.”

  Something dramatic happened to the LDS Church after Brigham died: it became an organization, run by a bureaucracy, rather than a movement led by charismatic men. Confirming the assessment that appointment as an apostle is a matter of seniority is the fact that it’s been a long time since the LDS Church president has been known for his visions and revelations. One fact (not the only fact) that reflects this change is that revelations added to LDS scripture went from a flood to a trickle to basically nothing. Joseph Smith was responsible for all of the LDS scriptures except for five texts added to D&C after his death (three chapters and two “official declarations,” the latter not really qualifying as revelatory). LDS Church Presidents are known not for what they “have seen” (most of them don’t even claim to “have seen” anything) but for being quintessential company men—faithful, loyal, lifelong servants of the organization. Mormons routinely criticize evangelicals who believe in a closed canon of Scripture. Yet the much-trumpeted continuing revelation of the LDS faith is almost entirely hypothetical: according to LDS theology, God could at any time choose to speak through his “living Prophet.” But he almost never does, unless you count platitudinous speeches urging the faithful to live morally commendable lives and to maintain their “testimony” to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church, and the system of living prophets and apostles—a system that is all but on life support.

  Please understand—I’m not criticizing such men as Hinckley and Monson. I’m simply pointing out, with regard to the LDS Church’s claim to be a prophetically led religion, that “the old gray mare, she ain’t what she used to be.”

Edited by Rob Bowman, 08 October 2010 - 03:08 PM.

[Daniel Peterson]

John Taylor's revelation calling Heber J. Grant and George Teasdale to the Twelve, Wilford Woodruff's revelations on sealings and on plural marriage, Lorenzo Snow's revelation on tithing, Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead, Spencer W. Kimball's revelation on priesthood, Gordon B. Hinckley's revelation on smaller temples -- off the top of my head, that's seven more revelations than mainstream Christendom received during the same post-Brigham period.

[CA Steve]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

  Please understand—I’m not criticizing such men as Hinckley and Monson. I’m simply pointing out, with regard to the LDS Church’s claim to be a prophetically led religion, that “the old gray mare, she ain’t what she used to be.”

Of course you are.

I am curious, what was the average age of the prophets in the Bible?

[jadams_4242]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

In another thread, Charles Dowis argued (as he often does) that orthodox Christianity made a serious mistake by replacing “prophets” with “theologians” and “scholars.” Supposedly, unfaithful Christians advanced the darkness of the Great Apostasy by rejecting living prophets in favor of intellectual analysis of the dead words on the page of the Bible. Charles is so glad that the Restoration has brought the living voice of God back into the world to guide the faithful and settle all doctrinal disputes with a “thus saith.” He speaks in glowing terms of his church having something we evangelicals don’t have—someone who could say, “I have seen.”

  The dirty little secret is that the contemporary LDS Church has replaced prophets with bureaucrats—men who obtain their position by working their way up the ladder, something much more of a seniority system than a spirit-driven system. The combined ages of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young on the dates they took office as LDS Church President and “Prophet” was 70 (Joseph was 24, Brigham 46; thus, their average age was 35). The average age of the next seven presidents at taking office was 73 (ranging between 62 and 82), while the average age of the most recent seven presidents at taking office was 83 (ranging between 73 and 93). The average age of the President of the Church, his two Counselors, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is 75. These are all supposedly “apostles.”

  Something dramatic happened to the LDS Church after Brigham died: it became an organization, run by a bureaucracy, rather than a movement led by charismatic men. Confirming the assessment that appointment as an apostle is a matter of seniority is the fact that it’s been a long time since the LDS Church president has been known for his visions and revelations. One fact (not the only fact) that reflects this change is that revelations added to LDS scripture went from a flood to a trickle to basically nothing. Joseph Smith was responsible for all of the LDS scriptures except for five texts added to D&C after his death (three chapters and two “official declarations,” the latter not really qualifying as revelatory). LDS Church Presidents are known not for what they “have seen” (most of them don’t even claim to “have seen” anything) but for being quintessential company men—faithful, loyal, lifelong servants of the organization. Mormons routinely criticize evangelicals who believe in a closed canon of Scripture. Yet the much-trumpeted continuing revelation of the LDS faith is almost entirely hypothetical: according to LDS theology, God could at any time choose to speak through his “living Prophet.” But he almost never does, unless you count platitudinous speeches urging the faithful to live morally commendable lives and to maintain their “testimony” to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church, and the system of living prophets and apostles—a system that is all but on life support.

  Please understand—I’m not criticizing such men as Hinckley and Monson. I’m simply pointing out, with regard to the LDS Church’s claim to be a prophetically led religion, that “the old gray mare, she ain’t what she used to be.”

  You seem to be very knowledgeable about when, where, and how often God speaks to his prophet?  

[Ahab]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

The dirty little secret is that the contemporary LDS Church has replaced prophets with bureaucrats—men who obtain their position by working their way up the ladder, something much more of a seniority system than a spirit-driven system.

The Holy Spirit works with seniors, too, and also with people who have a lot of experience working with the Holy Spirit, and The Church of Jesus Christ, as an organized body of believers, just keeps getting better and better.

[cinepro]

Daniel Peterson, on 08 October 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

John Taylor's revelation calling Heber J. Grant and George Teasdale to the Twelve, Wilford Woodruff's revelations on sealings and on plural marriage, Lorenzo Snow's revelation on tithing, Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead, Spencer W. Kimball's revelation on priesthood, Gordon B. Hinckley's revelation on smaller temples -- off the top of my head, that's seven more revelations than mainstream Christendom received during the same post-Brigham period.

After reading that list, I'm not sure which side you're arguing for.  

[Daniel Peterson]

cinepro, on 08 October 2010 - 03:22 PM, said:

After reading that list, I'm not sure which side you're arguing for.  

After reading your response, I have no idea what your point is.

Do you think that they're unworthy as revelations?  I don't.

No more than Peter's revelation on taking the gospel to the Gentiles, or one of Paul's revelations summoning him to go to preach in a certain place.

Salvation for the dead not a worthy topic?

[stemelbow]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

  The dirty little secret is that the contemporary LDS Church has replaced prophets with bureaucrats—men who obtain their position by working their way up the ladder, something much more of a seniority system than a spirit-driven system.

Why assume they are mutually exclusive?  Why assume that a "seniority system" is not exactly what God intends and is thus, spirit-driven?  

Quote

The combined ages of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young on the dates they took office as LDS Church President and “Prophet” was 70 (Joseph was 24, Brigham 46; thus, their average age was 35). The average age of the next seven presidents at taking office was 73 (ranging between 62 and 82), while the average age of the most recent seven presidents at taking office was 83 (ranging between 73 and 93). The average age of the President of the Church, his two Counselors, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is 75. These are all supposedly “apostles.”

Inspiration can come to anyone, no matter age.  Is your assumption that God can't have young people lead at one point and time, and then at another time have old people lead?  Why assume God can't do as He pleases, in terms of putting who He wants to be in charge.  

  

Quote

Something dramatic happened to the LDS Church after Brigham died: it became an organization, run by a bureaucracy, rather than a movement led by charismatic men.

Again this just appears to be assumption.  Why can't an organization, if it truly is, be spiritually lead?  Why can't members of a "bureaucracy" also be charismatic men?

Quote

Confirming the assessment that appointment as an apostle is a matter of seniority is the fact that it’s been a long time since the LDS Church president has been known for his visions and revelations. One fact (not the only fact) that reflects this change is that revelations added to LDS scripture went from a flood to a trickle to basically nothing.

That certainly doesn't mean the men aren't inspired by God to speak the will of God, of course.  Perhaps it is God's will that they speak and do exactly what they do currently speak and do.  You would never know.

Quote

Joseph Smith was responsible for all of the LDS scriptures except for five texts added to D&C after his death (three chapters and two “official declarations,” the latter not really qualifying as revelatory). LDS Church Presidents are known not for what they “have seen” (most of them don’t even claim to “have seen” anything) but for being quintessential company men—faithful, loyal, lifelong servants of the organization.

If the organization was set in order by God, and God commanded men to serve in the capacities that these men have served, then your point becomes pointless.  

Quote

Mormons routinely criticize evangelicals who believe in a closed canon of Scripture. Yet the much-trumpeted continuing revelation of the LDS faith is almost entirely hypothetical: according to LDS theology, God could at any time choose to speak through his “living Prophet.” But he almost never does, unless you count platitudinous speeches urging the faithful to live morally commendable lives and to maintain their “testimony” to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church, and the system of living prophets and apostles—a system that is all but on life support.

Unless of course God does, in effect, speak through the leaders, and God has chosen that they speak as they have spoken.  Perhaps there is something more to the whole eyes to see and ears to hear thing?  Perhaps God does speak through them and the message is received by the faithful as intended?    

  

Quote

Please understand—I’m not criticizing such men as Hinckley and Monson. I’m simply pointing out, with regard to the LDS Church’s claim to be a prophetically led religion, that “the old gray mare, she ain’t what she used to be.”

Purely assumption, though.  Perhaps it is what it used to be, but you simply don't realize it.  Perhaps God does inspire the leaders of the Church and they speak just as He would have them.  You simply wouldn't know.

love,
stem

[kolipoki09]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

The dirty little secret is that the contemporary LDS Church has replaced prophets with bureaucrats—men who obtain their position by working their way up the ladder, something much more of a seniority system than a spirit-driven system... Something dramatic happened to the LDS Church after Brigham died: it became an organization, run by a bureaucracy, rather than a movement led by charismatic men...Mormons routinely criticize evangelicals who believe in a closed canon of Scripture. Yet the much-trumpeted continuing revelation of the LDS faith is almost entirely hypothetical: according to LDS theology, God could at any time choose to speak through his “living Prophet.” But he almost never does, unless you count platitudinous speeches urging the faithful to live morally commendable lives and to maintain their “testimony” to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church, and the system of living prophets and apostles—a system that is all but on life support.

While I thank you for your assessment as you see it, I see a number of moments where you've perhaps misunderstood Mormon thought.

Your definitions of "charismatic" and "spirit-driven" are inseparable connected with the term "open canon." Latter-day Saints accept that God continues to reveal His will through His Prophets just as He did in ancient times. When conditions are such that a new revelation is required, we believe that God speaks to His living oracle. You may misunderstand the fact that not everything considered "revelation" has been canonized, but is still considered a belief or doctrine in the Church. Not everything spoken in General Conference should be characterized as "platitudinous speeches." In fact, some of the most "charismatic" and "spirit-driven" experiences of my life have been while listening to many of these sermons.

Revelations include mission calls (though not canonized as many D&C mission calls are). That accounts for well-over 25,000 calls issued by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve each year. In my own experience, I know my call came from the Lord, precisely because of the experiences I had on that mission that confirmed to me that the call was inspired.

Policy changes and First Presidency statements are commonplace. Where I have seen the most impact has been through the Church Educational System, where students from around the world who would otherwise have little post-high school education are able to receive it in an environment where both the spiritual and the secular are harmonized like a modern version of the School of the Prophets.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

Hi there. I am honored that you took time to comment.

Comparing LDS revelations since Brigham to non-LDS Christian revelations since Brigham is irrelevant; the point I made was that alleged revelation in the LDS religion slowed quickly from a flood to a trickle. But if you really want to do the comparison, you should consider all of the alleged revelations that various Pentecostals and charismatics have claimed to receive in the past century. The number probably runs into the thousands. Of course, I don't put any stock in the prophetic claims of such men as Kenneth Hagin or Benny Hinn, either. The issue is whether such claims are true, not merely whether they are being made.

Your quick list off the top of your head rather proves my point, especially when they are examined with some care. The only alleged revelation in your list that is in the league of what Joseph claimed to get on almost a daily basis is Joseph F. Smith's vision. The rest of these items are difficult to take seriously as anything but pragmatic decisions. The most recent two "revelations" you list are especially good examples. It's been nearly a century since JFS's vision, and those two decisions are the best that came to your mind off the top of your head. An American in the late 1970s, a decade after Martin Luther King's assassination, decides that people of color can hold the LDS priesthood. That's a revelation?! Now, if he had come up with that in the 1870s, you'd have something of a more plausible argument.

Daniel Peterson, on 08 October 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

John Taylor's revelation calling Heber J. Grant and George Teasdale to the Twelve, Wilford Woodruff's revelations on sealings and on plural marriage, Lorenzo Snow's revelation on tithing, Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead, Spencer W. Kimball's revelation on priesthood, Gordon B. Hinckley's revelation on smaller temples -- off the top of my head, that's seven more revelations than mainstream Christendom received during the same post-Brigham period.

[Bunk]

Daniel Peterson, on 08 October 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

John Taylor's revelation calling Heber J. Grant and George Teasdale to the Twelve, Wilford Woodruff's revelations on sealings and on plural marriage, Lorenzo Snow's revelation on tithing, Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead, Spencer W. Kimball's revelation on priesthood, Gordon B. Hinckley's revelation on smaller temples -- off the top of my head, that's seven more revelations than mainstream Christendom received during the same post-Brigham period.

Is the Proclamation on the Family a revelation?

Edited by Bunk, 08 October 2010 - 03:35 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab, I'm not putting down seniors. I'll be one myself in a few years. My point is a much more serious one.

Ahab, on 08 October 2010 - 03:17 PM, said:

The Holy Spirit works with seniors, too, and also with people who have a lot of experience working with the Holy Spirit, and The Church of Jesus Christ, as an organized body of believers, just keeps getting better and better.

[stemelbow]

Quote

Is the Proclamation on the Family a revelation?

Perhaps what needs to be defined, then, in this thread is what is a revelation?  What do you mean by revelation?

[DeepThinker]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

  The dirty little secret is that the contemporary LDS Church has replaced prophets with bureaucrats—men who obtain their position by working their way up the ladder, something much more of a seniority system than a spirit-driven system.

Wow ! You really have some exclusive insight into how the current apostles and prophets were selected !
Didn't realize that our Church leaders had taken you into their confidence.
Congratulations !

[Bunk]

stemelbow, on 08 October 2010 - 03:40 PM, said:

Perhaps what needs to be defined, then, in this thread is what is a revelation?  What do you mean by revelation?

It would be out of place for me to say, since I am not LDS.  

However, the Proclamation has frequently been referred to as an example of modern revelation.  Boyd K. Packer called it a revelation in his recent conference address, but in the published address this was edited so as to refer to the proclamation as a "guide".  Add to this the fact that Daniel Peterson did not include the proclamation in his list... I thought I would ask where it ranks.

[Rob Bowman]

Lurker,

You wrote:

Lurker, on 08 October 2010 - 03:14 PM, said:

I am curious, what was the average age of the prophets in the Bible?

I don't know an exact figure, but most of the prophets began their ministry as prophets as young men. Jeremiah makes a point of telling us that he was a youth when the Lord called him (Jer. 1:5). Daniel was also evidently a very young man, if not a teenager, when he began serving as a prophet; he was a youth when God enabled him to interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Dan. 2, cf. Dan. 1:3-4; 2:1). In the NT, Jesus' apostles evidently included several younger men when they were called to be apostles; John the son of Zebedee was apparently a teenager.

[Ahab]

Bunk, on 08 October 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

Is the Proclamation on the Family a revelation?

Do you know the definition of scripture?  Holy men writing as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit.

So, yeah, the Proclamation on the Family certainly qualifies, based upon the fact that it was written by holy men as they were moved upon by the Holy Spirit.

Edited by Ahab, 08 October 2010 - 03:49 PM.

[Ahab]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

Ahab, I'm not putting down seniors. I'll be one myself in a few years. My point is a much more serious one.

I think your point was, and still is, the Church ain't what it used to be, and my point is that we, as an organized body of believers, just keep getting better and better.

[CA Steve]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:46 PM, said:

Lurker,

You wrote:



I don't know an exact figure, but most of the prophets began their ministry as prophets as young men. Jeremiah makes a point of telling us that he was a youth when the Lord called him (Jer. 1:5). Daniel was also evidently a very young man, if not a teenager, when he began serving as a prophet; he was a youth when God enabled him to interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Dan. 2, cf. Dan. 1:3-4; 2:1). In the NT, Jesus' apostles evidently included several younger men when they were called to be apostles; John the son of Zebedee was apparently a teenager.

So when they got old they were no longer prophets?

[Deborah]

The OT prophet Samuel went as a small child to live with the prophet Eli and be taught all he would need to take on the mantle of prophet. It was understood that he would be the prophet. This is similar to Latter-day prophets who are called as young men to offices in the councils of the church which will give them training and preparation to preside over the church. Even Moses, who was called directly by God, still received council from his father-in-law. With age comes wisdom and when the mantle of prophet is bestowed we can be sure that our latter-day prophets have been through the gristmill and refined.