403 replies to this topic

[thesometimesaint]

http://answers.yahoo...02104402AAdzysL

There have been 12 men on the moon all of them Americans. NASA's mission changed from one of going to the moon quick and dirty. To one which was on reusable spacecraft, and deep space explorations using telescopes and small unmanned vehicles doing lots of science. While leaving the moon to private corporations.

[Monster]

Deborah, on 10 October 2010 - 12:08 PM, said:

In the first place I would hardly call it a prophecy. Secondly, he wasn't the prophet of the church at the time and thirdly he said it in a stake conference, not a general conference. It was clearly not meant as revelation or doctrine though he may have had reasons to make such a strong statement at the time.

All that aside, if you want to get nit-picky, I hardly call a few men taking a few steps as walking on the moon. Have any men been back in the last nearly 40 years?

I will remember all of those stipulations next time a leader speaks. Then I can disregard their comments as opinion if all requirements are not met.

Actually I was just trying to point out it is not so much whether revelation is being received but what is that revelation and what value is it. Many leaders or the prophet specifically if you wish have said things that have been very revelatory and some that are not. Just looking for the best way to judge which is and which is not.

[Zakuska]

cdowis, on 09 October 2010 - 05:04 PM, said:

You're kidding, right?  



I guess you will continue to use clever sophistry to deny that Joshua was a prophet, even though the Lord spoke directly to him, and made it clear that he was the successor to Moses.  The children of Israel acknowledged his prophetic role:



But Rob Bowen asks us whether Joshua was a prophet.  

Amazing.

Tell me about it! One need only look at the following verses to Know Joshua was a Prophet...

Quote

Ex. 17:9 - 14, 24:13, 32:17 - 18, 33:11; Num. 11:28 - 29, 13:4 - 14:38; 27:18 - 27:23, Deut. 1:38, 3:28, 31:3, 31:7 -Joshua 24:29

http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm

Edited by Zakuska, 10 October 2010 - 04:12 PM.

[Chris]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 04:10 PM, said:

The fact that LDS prophets have issued very few revelations and almost no new scripture since the passing of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young is only part of the larger argument for viewing those leaders as something other than prophets. Until you wrestle with the cumulative nature of the argument as a whole, you haven't effectively answered it.

Not only are they few in number but they also lack in quality. Now I would say the same thing about any supposed prophet that has ever lived - not just LDS. Prophets supposedly have a direct line with the creator of the universe and yet it took us how long to figure out that slavery is wrong (for example)? Smaller temples is a revelation directly from the almighty God of the universe... really? Or just a smart business move?

With all the problems the world is facing (and has faced), the solutions offered by religion/prophets are pretty much what I would expect uninspired human beings would offer.

[Deborah]

Chris, on 10 October 2010 - 04:59 PM, said:

With all the problems the world is facing (and has faced), the solutions offered by religion/prophets are pretty much what I would expect uninspired human beings would offer.

Could it be because the purpose is not and never has been to influence world leaders, who have the power to make changes to solve the world's problems. Prophets speak to those who are willing to listen to warn, guide and prepare them for whatever may come in the world, not to solve all the world's problems.

[cdowis]

Rob,
I guess this is just another broken record.  I want to make one final comment on the question you posed in the title of this thread, Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

Some may find my answer somewhat surprising.  For those who are content to go to heaven, to live in the presence of Christ, who are content to sing hymns for eternity == for those individuals the answer is, "It doesn't matter.  It is a moot question."

There are many churches who can lead you to that location.  Prophets are really only necessary if you want to live in the presence of the Father, and to become a joint heir with Christ, to become, as Christ taught, "perfect in one" as Christ is one with the Father.  In that instance, prophets are necessary.  As Christ gave to Peter the keys of the priesthood, to bind in heaven and on earth, the ordinances leading to exaltation can only be administered by the power and keys held by those so-called bureaucrats, the prophets.

Paul told us clearly that the Church of Christ would always have apostles and prophets within the organization.

So it all depends on where you want to reside, and what you want to do for eternity.

Edited by cdowis, 10 October 2010 - 09:50 PM.

[Avatar4321]

The LDS Church is lead by Jesus Christ who speaks to the President of the High Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God and 14 other men who are called as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

Would that we would all live with the gift of Prophecy in our lives.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.”

Ok. lets see if we can shed some light on your arguments, I doubt I will get it as others much more intelligent than myself seem to be struggling to grasp your argument.

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 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.”

So the problem you see is that because they set up a seniority system rather than a "spirit-driven system" and that JS and BY were much younger than other LDS porphets, that represents a problem? Do you agree that that sums up your argument here? You also hinted that they "work their way up the system".

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

  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.

Your main argument here seems to be that "there used ot be a flood of revelation and new scripture and now it is just a trickle". Is that an accurate summerize of your argument?

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.”

Duely noted.

[cdowis]

I think another point is that even if JS were a prophet, the leaders since BY are just "bureaucrats" == they are upwardly moble, actively moving thru the ranks of church leadership.  He sees this as a career to be pursued, rather than a calling from God.  But he later conceded that a prophet could also be a bureaucrat, so this argument is rather confusing.

Anyway, he prefers prophets who are spontaneously called, rather than the orderly process in the church.  When I asked him about Paul's statement that the apostles and prophets were a permanent part of the church's organization, he was silent.

Edited by cdowis, 11 October 2010 - 09:15 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

Daniel Peterson, on 09 October 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

I've been critiquing your overall stance, and arguing for mine, for roughly twenty-five years.  And there's much, much more to come.  I've hardly started.

If you say so, but apparently you don't have time to show here how your critique affects the cumulative-case argument I presented as a whole. That's okay -- we're both extremely busy and can't do as much here as we would like. I also haven't presented my whole case in this thread, but simply one general area of concern.

[Rob Bowman]

TAO,

You wrote:

TAO, on 09 October 2010 - 04:26 PM, said:

Similarly to how some prophets (like Moses) were old, while others (like Jacob) were young.  Not much difference to the Bible IMO.

You missed the point that LDS prophets since Brigham have been consistently elderly. That is a significant difference.

You wrote:

Quote

Prophets in the Bible oftentimes inherited their prophetship through family lines, did they not?  That's still a system, and it doesn't make them any less prophets.

I'm scratching my head trying to think of evidence to support such a system. The following men do not seem to have inherited their status as prophets from relatives: Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3), Moses (Ex. 3:1-12), Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1-2, 19; 3:1-20), Elijah (1 Kings 17:1-5), Elisha (1 Kings 19:16-19), Isaiah (Is. 6:8-9), Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:2), Daniel (Dan. 2:12-23), Hosea (Hos. 1:1-2), Amos (Amos 1:1), Jonah (2 Kings 14:25), Nahum (Nahum 1:1), Zephaniah (Zeph. 1:1), and Haggai (Hag. 1:1). I'm not saying a prophet can never be related to another prophet (see 2 Chron. 15:8 for one example), but there does not seem to have been any such "system."

You wrote:

Quote

In the beginning, there was alot to reveal, nowdays there is alot to protect.  However, there is also still things to reveal, but they come much less often.

In principle, then, God could decide at some point that he's done revealing new things for the rest of this age or dispensation until Christ returns. That's possible, isn't it?

You wrote:

Quote

Except that the apostles are not called regularly.  Thus, neither is the prophet called regularly.

You seem to straining against the plain facts at this point. When the Prophet-President dies, the LDS Church sets things in motion to replace him. The process is quite regular; in fact, it is institutionalized.

[zerinus]

cdowis, on 10 October 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

Rob,
I guess this is just another broken record.

Evidently so.

Rob Bowman, on 11 October 2010 - 12:28 PM, said:

-- we're both extremely busy and can't do as much here as we would like.

LOL! Try again!

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I wrote:

* the consistently old ages of the prophets at the time they take their office as contrasted to Joseph (24) and Brigham (46)

You commented:

Quote

Alas, then Moses must not be a prophet.

Apparently you also missed the word "consistently." Is the argument really that difficult to follow?

I wrote:

* the fact that these "prophets" obtain their office through what looks suspiciously like a seniority system

You commented:

Quote

Alas, the[n] Elisha and Peter must not be prophets.

I have no idea how these two men supposedly illustrate a seniority system. Elisha was minding his own business plowing a field when Elijah (still alive!) approached him and called him, as the Lord had directed Elijah, to become his successor (1 Kings 19:15-21). Elisha had no experience in a religious organization, let alone seniority in one. And Peter? Peter did not succeed anyone in his office.

I wrote:

* the fact that Joseph and Brigham were theological innovators while all  of the prophets since then have been theological conservators

You commented:

Quote

Alas, Jesus, who came to fulfill the Law, must not be a prophet.

It is really quite remarkable how badly you are misconstruing my argument. And Jesus was neither an innovator nor a conservator of theology. He was sui generis, someone of a completely different level and nature that transcends such differences.

I wrote:

* the flood of new canonical or otherwise publicly disseminated  revelations through Joseph compared to the trickle since his death

You commented:

Quote

You mean, for example, like the amount of revelation during the life of Jesus vs. during the lives of the Apostles?

Huh?

I wrote:

* the fact that two of the most notable "revelations" of the past 120  years were pragmatic decisions easily accounted for as changes to  maintain the viability of the religion (its survival, in the case of  OD1)

You commented:

Quote

Alas Jeremiah, who advocated submission to Babylon, must not be a prophet.

Sigh. I just know you're smarter than this. You're smart enough to see that this doesn't really address my argument at all. My claim is not that a prophet cannot give pragmatic counsel. If you really think that's my point, it's probably hopeless to try to explain it again.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

I wrote: "CFR that Joshua was a prophet." You replied:

Quote

You're kidding, right?

Nope. You quoted Joshua 1:1-3 as follows:

Quote

Joshua  [1] Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to  pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister,  saying,
[2] Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan,  thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even  to the children of Israel.
[3] Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.

I don't see the word "prophet" anywhere in this passage. You explain:

Quote

I guess you will continue to use clever sophistry to deny that Joshua  was a prophet, even though the Lord spoke directly to him, and made it  clear that he was the successor to Moses.

A person is not a prophet merely because the Lord speaks directly to him. If you say otherwise, CFR that anyone to whom the Lord speaks directly is a prophet.

The passage also does not say that Joshua was Moses' successor. You can describe him as Moses' successor in the limited sense that Joshua took over the task of leading the Israelites in their journey into the Promised Land, but this doesn't make Joshua a prophet.

You wrote:

Quote

The children of Israel  acknowledged his prophetic role:

[16] And they answered Joshua, saying, All that thou commandest us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go.
[17] According as we hearkened unto Moses in all things, so will we  hearken unto thee: only the LORD thy God be with thee, as he was with  Moses.
[18] Whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment, and will  not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be  put to death: only be strong and of a good courage.

I don't see the term "prophet" in this passage, either. Joshua was their leader, just as Moses had been their leader. But I don't see anything here to indicate that Joshua's position or status was that of a prophet.

You wrote:

Quote

But Rob Bowen asks us whether Joshua was a prophet.   Amazing.

Now I think I see the problem. You were writing while half asleep. Unless, after all this time, you really don't know my name?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 11 October 2010 - 01:15 PM, said:

I don't see the word "prophet" anywhere in this passage. You explain:

Lol. Good one Rob.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Bernard Gui, on 09 October 2010 - 09:27 PM, said:

Hmm. So stating the obvious is part of your argument. Your accusation that Mormon prophets are simply bureaucrats fails at several points. First, none of them seeks the position, lobbies for it, schemes for it, or engages in political intrigues. Second, there is no way, except through treachery, that an apostle can assure himself the President's position.

I'll be sure never to offer you a position in a company or other organization, since evidently you assume that anyone in a bureaucracy may be assumed to lobby and scheme to obtain his position. The fact is that I assumed nor implied none of these things with regard to LDS leaders. I'm sure they're all very nice, ethical bureaucrats.

You wrote:

Quote

I engaged every point of your argument. Perhaps you don't understand the answers you have received.

You commented on each of my bullet points, but you didn't engage the argument as a whole. That is, you didn't deal with the argument as a cumulative-case argument.

Suppose I said that I have something here that I believe is chocolate cake. As evidence, I point out that this food:

* is sweet
* is dark brown
* has flour in it
* has eggs in it
* has chocolate in it
* is covered in a smooth covering that is also dark brown and sweet

You could go through the list and argue that lots of other things beside chocolate cake are sweet; that other foods are dark brown; that there is such a thing as white chocolate; etc., etc., but a response on that level would not even begin to engage the argument for viewing the food product as chocolate cake.

You wrote:

Quote

The Didache is obviously not talking about the original 12 called by Jesus. The writer expects more to appear and gives the directions of the 12  how to recognize and treat them.

There were more than 12 apostles at the same time. From the NT alone we can determine that at one time there were at least 14 apostles. The issue is whether apostles were an ongoing institutional office that was expected to continue indefinitely. The Didache doesn't address this question.

[zerinus]

cdowis, on 11 October 2010 - 09:03 AM, said:

I think another point is that even if JS were a prophet, the leaders since BY are just "bureaucrats" == they are upwardly moble, actively moving thru the ranks of church leadership.  He sees this as a career to be pursued, rather than a calling from God.

Well, in the LDS Church positions are never sought, by accepted. Nobody “applies” to become a Mormon bishop, or stake president, or quorum president, or Relief Society president … or an Apostle or Prophet for that matter. Most people would run away from it. But when the calling comes it is thought of as a privilege, and an opportunity to serve. I think everybody who is not a bishop says in his heart, “God bless him, I am glad it is him and not me!”

Quote

Anyway, he prefers prophets who are spontaneously called, rather than the orderly process in the church.

Evidently he is not aware of the following quote, attributed to the Apostles by the Council of Nicaea, as reported on page 99 of the History of the First Council of Nicaea:

For it is a wise saying of the apostle, as follows:
“Not a novice, lest through pride he fall into condemnation, and into the snare of the devil.”

Edited by zerinus, 11 October 2010 - 01:43 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

I expect to reside in the presence of the Father and the Son for eternity, based not on ordinances controlled and performed by ordinary men but based on the sacrifice performed by the incarnate Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and on no other basis. And the doctrine that billions of people can live forever in the presence of Christ in a second-tier heavenly kingdom apart from God the Father is a tragically unbiblical notion.

cdowis, on 10 October 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

Rob,
I guess this is just another broken record.  I want to make one final comment on the question you posed in the title of this thread, Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

Some may find my answer somewhat surprising.  For those who are content to go to heaven, to live in the presence of Christ, who are content to sing hymns for eternity == for those individuals the answer is, "It doesn't matter.  It is a moot question."

There are many churches who can lead you to that location.  Prophets are really only necessary if you want to live in the presence of the Father, and to become a joint heir with Christ, to become, as Christ taught, "perfect in one" as Christ is one with the Father.  In that instance, prophets are necessary.  As Christ gave to Peter the keys of the priesthood, to bind in heaven and on earth, the ordinances leading to exaltation can only be administered by the power and keys held by those so-called bureaucrats, the prophets.

Paul told us clearly that the Church of Christ would always have apostles and prophets within the organization.

So it all depends on where you want to reside, and what you want to do for eternity.

[cinepro]

Earlier in the thread, the question of whether or not "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" would count as a "revelation".

To that end, I find these changes to Elder Packer's recent talk interesting.

Original (spoken) version (at 00:51 in the MP3):

Quote

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church.  It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation, and, uh, it would do well that the members of the Church to read and follow it.

Published version:

Quote

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

To those who might have supposed the proclamation was a good example of a "revelation", does this change in the talk change your consideration of whether or not it should be used as an example of a "revelation"?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You need to pull all of the threads of the argument together to see the piece of cloth. Take a look at post #84, and consider also my analogy in my most recent reply to Bernard.