403 replies to this topic

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 12:58 PM, said:

Dan,

My argument takes into consideration a number of different kinds of facts concerning LDS leadership. All of these facts pertain to significant differences between the alleged prophets Joseph and Brigham and the alleged prophets that have headed the LDS Church ever since. These differences include:

* the consistently old ages of the prophets at the time they take their office as contrasted to Joseph (24) and Brigham (46)
* the fact that these "prophets" obtain their office through what looks suspiciously like a seniority system
* the fact that Joseph and Brigham were theological innovators while all of the prophets since then have been theological conservators
* the flood of new canonical or otherwise publicly disseminated revelations through Joseph compared to the trickle since his death
* 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)

One could add to the above the following consideration:

* the obvious contrast between the irregular calling of prophets at God's sovereign pleasure in the Bible and the regular appointment of a new prophet whenever one dies in the LDS organization

Notice that the issue is not the revelatory output of any one prophet; that none of the above points is meant to function as a stand-alone refutation of the LDS claim to be led by prophets; and that the argument is a cumulative-case argument, not a deductive argument.

Hope this helps.

If God were to call a prophet Rob, how would he do it?

I am failing to see why any of these are a strike against the church.

Thanks for your reply.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 11 October 2010 - 01:34 PM, said:

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.

So what is your take of this commandment:

Mark 16:

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not [and consequently not baptized] shall be damned.

Do you think Jesus was not serious when He said that?

Quote

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.

Paul believed that in the resurrection some bodes will be celestial and some terrestrial—inheriting different glories. What do you think he meant by that?

1 Corinthians 15:

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead.  It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

In his other epistle to the Corinthians he says:

2 Corinthians 12:

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

So evidently Paul not only believed there were three heavens, but had actually seen it, in a vision. So if there are (at least) three heavens, what do you think is the difference between them? What is the difference between the first heaven and the third one, for example? Surely, if there are (at least) three heavens, there must be some kind of difference between them. What do you think that difference is?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

He might do it in any number of ways. However, the issue here is not the alleged status of any one person as a prophet, but the entire class of individuals for the past 133 years who have claimed to be the Prophet and whose status as such is the result of a seniority system (as some here have already conceded) that is patently institutionalized and bureaucratic. This fact, taken together with the other facts I listed, support a cumulative-case argument that those men have not been and are not prophets. The argument must be addressed in its historical aspect with regards to the multi-generational process and not atomized as though it concerned any one individual.

One thing we can safely say from the Bible is that God calls the darndest people, and he does so whenever he wants, which is to say, no one ever knows ahead of time whether a particular generation or century or longer period will have any prophets or not. The LDS prophet is a human organizational office with a regularity, consistency, and even predictability that is quite the contrast to what we find in the Bible.

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 11 October 2010 - 02:11 PM, said:

If God were to call a prophet Rob, how would he do it?

I am failing to see why any of these are a strike against the church.

Thanks for your reply.

[Nathair]

Dr. Bowman

I'm certainly not qualified to engage your arguments, but I would like to offer a perspective on why we don't seem to receive the kind of revelations found in D&C 76 right now.  


Not hard: Look at how the membership reacts to the revelation we do receive. How many members are freaking out over Pres. Packer's talk last weekend? More prevalent and more insidious, though, are people like me who simply aren't as valiant as we should be, who don't do our home teaching as well as we could or who skip our prayers once in a while, or are otherwise less faithful than we should be even though we know better. How can we expect experiences like the Kirtland temple dedication or glorious insights like D&c 76 when we do so little with what we have? I am as bad as anyone, and that makes it worse because I know better.


Yours under the embarrassed oaks,
Nathair /|\

[zerinus]

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

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

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.

I was tempted to reply to this one, but I think Charles can do a better job of it than I can. But I am just curious: What is your definition of a prophet?—backed up by scripture references preferably.

Edited by zerinus, 11 October 2010 - 02:30 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I only have time at the moment to answer one of your comments. With regard to Mark 16:16, if you want to cite this verse to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation, you've got a problem for LDS theology. The consequence of not getting baptized, if you're right, is not life in a wonderful heavenly kingdom that is second place to the celestial kingdom. The consequence is damnation. Only by linguistic sleight-of-hand can one maintain that immortal life in the terrestrial kingdom is damnation.

The fact that you had to add "and consequently not baptized" in brackets suggests that the verse does not self-evidently teach that lack of baptism will result in damnation. Suppose someone said, "The man who commits himself to a woman and puts a wedding ring on her finger is married; the man who does not commit himself to a woman is not married." This would not mean that the ring is essential; it would simply be referring to the putting on of a ring because this is a recognized ceremonial act associated with getting married. But the ring itself is not essential (though the woman might disagree!).

And now for something you really won't like: I doubt Jesus even said this. Mark 16:16 is part of the Long Ending of Mark, which most biblical scholars (including moi) think was added by a later scribe, not part of what Mark actually wrote. The manuscript evidence supports this conclusion, as does the internal evidence. I can explain it if you like. I wouldn't base doctrine on this verse any more than I would base a doctrine on what verse 18 says about handling snakes.

zerinus, on 11 October 2010 - 02:17 PM, said:

So what is your take of this commandment:

Mark 16:

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not [and consequently not baptized] shall be damned.

Do you think Jesus was not serious when He said that?

[Rob Bowman]

Nathair,

Your explanation is suitable for defending the traditional Christian view that we haven't received any new doctrinal revelations since the end of the first century: perhaps the Lord thinks what he gave us in the NT is enough to keep us busy.

Nathair, on 11 October 2010 - 02:23 PM, said:

Dr. Bowman

I'm certainly not qualified to engage your arguments, but I would like to offer a perspective on why we don't seem to receive the kind of revelations found in D&C 76 right now.  

Not hard: Look at how the membership reacts to the revelation we do receive. How many members are freaking out over Pres. Packer's talk last weekend? More prevalent and more insidious, though, are people like me who simply aren't as valiant as we should be, who don't do our home teaching as well as we could or who skip our prayers once in a while, or are otherwise less faithful than we should be even though we know better. How can we expect experiences like the Kirtland temple dedication or glorious insights like D&c 76 when we do so little with what we have? I am as bad as anyone, and that makes it worse because I know better.

Yours under the embarrassed oaks,
Nathair /|\

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 11 October 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

Mola,

He might do it in any number of ways. However, the issue here is not the alleged status of any one person as a prophet, but the entire class of individuals for the past 133 years who have claimed to be the Prophet and whose status as such is the result of a seniority system (as some here have already conceded) that is patently institutionalized and bureaucratic. This fact, taken together with the other facts I listed, support a cumulative-case argument that those men have not been and are not prophets. The argument must be addressed in its historical aspect with regards to the multi-generational process and not atomized as though it concerned any one individual.

I am sorry, but I simply don't find this arguemnt very persuasive. There is nothing in the bible that says God has to be sparatic when calling prophets.

Rob Bowman, on 11 October 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

One thing we can safely say from the Bible is that God calls the darndest people, and he does so whenever he wants, which is to say, no one ever knows ahead of time whether a particular generation or century or longer period will have any prophets or not. The LDS prophet is a human organizational office with a regularity, consistency, and even predictability that is quite the contrast to what we find in the Bible.

That he does. God calls whom He will. As I see it God set up the current standard to avoid confusion. One thing you alluded to earlier is that the prophets and apostles "work their way up the system" I love for you to demonstrate this.

Your assessment is correct, that once a person enters in to the quarom of 12 there is a seniority class system. But before that time there is no president set forth that there is a seniroity class. AS far as I see it it is still divinly lead and there is wisdom in setting up a senoirity system. Of course you can still think it is "predictable" in who the next prophet will be but nothing is ever set in stone even in the current system. Who is to say that God is still not leading that system?

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 11 October 2010 - 02:30 PM, said:

zerinus,

I only have time at the moment to answer one of your comments. With regard to Mark 16:16, if you want to cite this verse to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation, you've got a problem for LDS theology. The consequence of not getting baptized, if you're right, is not life in a wonderful heavenly kingdom that is second place to the celestial kingdom. The consequence is damnation. Only by linguistic sleight-of-hand can one maintain that immortal life in the terrestrial kingdom is damnation.

The fact that you had to add "and consequently not baptized" in brackets suggests that the verse does not self-evidently teach that lack of baptism will result in damnation. Suppose someone said, "The man who commits himself to a woman and puts a wedding ring on her finger is married; the man who does not commit himself to a woman is not married." This would not mean that the ring is essential; it would simply be referring to the putting on of a ring because this is a recognized ceremonial act associated with getting married. But the ring itself is not essential (though the woman might disagree!).

And now for something you really won't like: I doubt Jesus even said this. Mark 16:16 is part of the Long Ending of Mark, which most biblical scholars (including moi) think was added by a later scribe, not part of what Mark actually wrote. The manuscript evidence supports this conclusion, as does the internal evidence. I can explain it if you like. I wouldn't base doctrine on this verse any more than I would base a doctrine on what verse 18 says about handling snakes.

Well, you do have a point, in that the text of the New Testament as we have it is not in perfect condition. It has been changed, and indeed corrupted. We know that from modern revelation. The Book of Mormon tells us that. So thanks for pointing that out. However, we don’t think that is one of the changes. In the New Testament there is another passage as follows:

Matthew 3:

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

And this is how the Book of Mormon interprets this passage:

2 Nephi 31:

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!
6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7 Know ye not that he was holy?  But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.
8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.
9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.
10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me.  Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?
11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.
12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.
13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

Logic and reason tells us that that interpretation of the New Testament is correct—regardless of whether you believe in the Book of Mormon or not. If Jesus needed to be baptized to “fulfil all righteousness,” how can we escape it? Evidently we can’t—hence Mark 16:16 is not an incorrect doctrine. Baptism is a requirement for salvation as Jesus taught us, not only by word, but even more importantly by example.

[changed]

Quote

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.

MW: There are those who say, this is a gerontocracy, this is a church run by old men.

GBH: Isn't it wonderful? To have a man of maturity at the head, a man of judgment, who isn't blown about by every wind of doctrine?

MW: Absolutely, as long as he's not dotty. [Laughs.]

GBH: [Laughs] Thank you for the compliment.

http://mormontruthin...view-on-60.html

[cdowis]

cinepro, on 11 October 2010 - 01:35 PM, said:

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

snip

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"?

I think the change was nade because it has not been canonized.  I think the church is being careful about the use of terminology -- I can imagine someone said, "It's not included in the scriptures, so we can't call it revelation".  

He obviously thought it was, and I think many members would agree.

[changed]

Seems to me that Jesus used the same meathod that the LDS church does.  

Jesus (the head of the church) needed someone else to lead when he was dead - so he chose one of his apostles, Peter.  
This is the same way that the LDS church does it - when one leader dies, another leader is chosen from the apostles.

Peter worked his way up through the ranks too (Peter was the chief apostle)

Edited by changed, 11 October 2010 - 03:51 PM.

[cdowis]

Rob Bowman, on 11 October 2010 - 02:30 PM, said:

With regard to Mark 16:16, if you want to cite this verse to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation, you've got a problem for LDS theology. The consequence of not getting baptized, if you're right, is not life in a wonderful heavenly kingdom that is second place to the celestial kingdom. The consequence is damnation. Only by linguistic sleight-of-hand can one maintain that immortal life in the terrestrial kingdom is damnation.


Thanks, Rob for your concern, but we're covered.  Do you know this why we build temples, do genealogy, and vicarious baptisms for the deceased.  Many of my own ancestors have the opportunity to accept baptism by those who have priesthood authority.


The fact that you had to add "and consequently not baptized" in brackets suggests that the verse does not self-evidently teach that lack of baptism will result in damnation.

I would guess he knew that it would not be self-evident to someone who did not even know whether Joshua was a prophet.  It is not always safe to make assumptions.


snip
And now for something you really won't like: I doubt Jesus even said this. Mark 16:16 is part of the Long Ending of Mark, which most biblical scholars (including moi) think was added by a later scribe, not part of what Mark actually wrote.

So, "moi" does not think the Bible is inerrant.  Not just a word here or there, but entire passages.

This presents a real problem for churches who solely rely on the bible, sola scriptura.  You reject living prophets, and now you express doubt on the bible.  

That is your dirty little secret.


The manuscript evidence supports this conclusion, as does the internal evidence. I can explain it if you like.

No need, since we have living prophets.  Joseph Smith helped us out with the JST, the Book of Mormon and other revealed scriptures.

I wouldn't base doctrine on this verse any more than I would base a doctrine on what verse 18 says about handling snakes.

Must be nice to pick and chose what doctrines you will accept from the Bible like a buffet dinner.  On the other side, accept such nonbiblical doctrines as homoousia.

I envy your flexibility.

Edited by cdowis, 12 October 2010 - 05:42 AM.

[changed]

revelation...

the new handbook of instructions is half the size of the old one.  Why?  We are supposed to be getting personal revelations for ourselves (rather than relying on others to do our thinking for us).  

The biggest revelation currently? is "you need to get your own revelations"...

(Book of Mormon | Alma 26:22)
22 Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed..


so, if you want a new revelation, you know what you have to do...

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 11 October 2010 - 02:30 PM, said:

zerinus,

I only have time at the moment to answer one of your comments. With regard to Mark 16:16, if you want to cite this verse to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation, you've got a problem for LDS theology. The consequence of not getting baptized, if you're right, is not life in a wonderful heavenly kingdom that is second place to the celestial kingdom. The consequence is damnation. Only by linguistic sleight-of-hand can one maintain that immortal life in the terrestrial kingdom is damnation.

It looks like I forgot to answer this one for you. The answer is that in scripture, as in ordinary speech, words have different shades of meaning; and we usually rely on the context to help us decide the nearest approximation. The following verses in the Bible tell us that the word damnation can have more than one meaning:

Matthew 23:

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mark 12:

40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

Luke 20:

47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

So it looks like there are different kinds of damnation. All damnation is not the same. Some receive a greater damnation than others. So what do you think is the difference between a lesser damnation and a greater one? Which kind of damnation would you rather receive, a lesser one or a greater one?

John 5:

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

This verse seems to put you Evangelicals in a pickle, because it makes your salvation or damnation dependent on what you do rather than on just what you believe. Food for thought—or have you guys become impervious to that?

Romans 13:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

This passage is a really clever one. It puts you Evangelicals in an even bigger pickle than the first. The “power” that this verse is referring to is the power of civil government. What he is saying is that if you resist that power (by wrongdoing) you will justly be “damned” (meaning punished by the same power). So here to be “damned” means to be sentenced by a civilian authority for breaking the law!

1 Corinthians 11:

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

This is another verse that puts you Evangelicals in a right pickle, because it makes salvation/damnation dependent on your partaking of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper worthily, which means works, which you deny.

1 Timothy 5:

12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

This is another verse that is problematic from an Evangelical point of view, because it implies that it is possible to come to faith (thus saved) and then lose it, which contradicts your “once saved, always saved” perversion of Christian doctrine.

So it looks like from these verses that the word “damnation” in the Bible almost never means what you think it does. It means anything from being sentenced by a civilian court for wrongdoing, to suffering different “amounts” of punishment in the next life depending on the seriousness of the sins committed in this life. So what is your answer to all of that? let me guess: You are too busy to reply! LOL!

In modern revelation the Lord has hit the nail squarely on the head as far as the theological interpretation of this word is concerned:

D&C 19:

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
7  Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name's glory.
8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it!  For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name.  Wherefore—
11 Eternal punishment is God's punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God's punishment.

Did you get that? Are you convinced now that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and he received revelations form God?

[Bernard Gui]

Rob Bowman, on 11 October 2010 - 01:26 PM, said:

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.

And I'll be sure never to apply for that position, since evidently you prefer misrepresentation, dissembling, and sensationalism:

Quote

(from the OP) 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... 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.

You and I know what image is brought up when using "bureaucrat" to describe somone. It is not a complement, even if you
sarcastically refer to them as "nice and ethical)---

Bureaucrat:  an administrator concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs.

Now I ask you to demonstrate how any LDS President obtained his position by "working his way up the ladder." If you cannot do this, then
you have lost all credibility as far as I am concerned. Let's start with any one of the last 5, since we are all familiar with them..

Here's a start for you: (Thomas Monson, Gordon Hinckley, Howard Hunter, Ezra Benson, Spencer Kimball) climbed to the Presidency of
the LDS Church by..........................  Fill in the blank.

Quote

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.

Just as Arthur did not engage the Black Knight "as a whole."

Quote

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.

I would agree that your items describe a chocolate cake, but that does not salvage your fundamental misunderstanding of the LDS Presidency.

Quote

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.

It's not at all clear that there were 14 living at the same time, but that is moot because there are 15 in the LDS Church.
The author of the Didache clearly expects apostles and prophets to be in the Church of his time, and even calls
them "your High Priests" to whom the members were to give the first fruits of their labor.

Bernard

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 11 October 2010 - 01:07 PM, said:

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.

So your argument is not just dependent not just on a double standard, but on special pleading.  Got it.  When it's done in the Bible, it's by revelation.  When it's done by Mormons, well ...

So the system of succession by patriarchal seniority of High Priest in ancient Israel was not established by God, right?

[Obiwan]

Rob Bowman clearly doesn't understand the scriptural history of Prophets to be critical of ours.

There are prophets of all ages, some who have some great purpose like Joseph Smith Jr., and others which by the way are the vast majority, are what I would call "maintenance prophets".  They are the many prophets "in between" some great event or prophet.  And guess what, lo and behold NEARLY ALL WERE OLD.....

Boy, those mormons really are so different from Biblical Prophets, and Biblical Prophets were never a "bureaucracy"???  Not.

Again, anti-mormons suffer from making false judgements without actually knowing the scriptures, that such judgements would condemn their own Biblical foundations.  tisk tisk as usual.

[Gandalf]

The fact is that for 15 prophets, seers and revelators, there's remarkably little (close to 0) prophecy, visions and revelations. While active I would jump through mental hoops double backwards to pretend this has no bearing, but now my vision has cleared, it seems ridiculously plain.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 11 October 2010 - 02:38 PM, said:

I am sorry, but I simply don't find this arguemnt very persuasive. There is nothing in the bible that says God has to be sparatic when calling prophets.

Please mount an argument from the Bible proving that I am not a prophet. No matter what you say, I can use the same argumentative strategy that you are using here: I can simply assert that the Bible never says a prophet can't be just like, well, me!

You wrote:

Quote

One thing you alluded to earlier is that the prophets and apostles "work their way up the system" I love for you to demonstrate this.

Your assessment is correct, that once a person enters in to the quarom of 12 there is a seniority class system. But before that time there is no president set forth that there is a seniroity class. AS far as I see it it is still divinly lead and there is wisdom in setting up a senoirity system. Of course you can still think it is "predictable" in who the next prophet will be but nothing is ever set in stone even in the current system. Who is to say that God is still not leading that system?

Well, you have conceded a "seniority" system once a man is made an apostle. I agree that there is no straight seniority system to reach that position of apostle, but the evidence does support the idea that men "work their way up the system." Let's take the current LDS Prophet-President, Thomas S. Monson. He was a bishop at age 22, a counselor to a stake president at age 27, a mission president at age 32, served on some LDS Church committees, and was called to be an apostle at age 36 (the youngest since Joseph Fielding Smith) in 1963. That sounds like he worked his way up the system. Nothing sinister is meant by this: he seems to have proven himself a very capable individual and from what I know a nice man. Then the seniority system becomes patently obvious: he advanced to Second Counselor in 1985, First Counselor in 1995, and now he's the President.