Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

[cdowis]

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)

[cdowis]

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.

[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

[zerinus]

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

[Bernard Gui]

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:

(from the OP) The dirty little secret is that the contemporary LDS Church has replaced prophets with bureaucrats

[Bill Hamblin]

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:

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:

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.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

The way we approach biblical texts is probably just too different for us to come an agreement on these things.

I am not suggesting that baptism is not a commandment. God tells us to get baptized. But that doesn't mean that it is a prerequisite for salvation. Nor does it make Mark 16:16 an authentic text of Scripture.

It is ironic -- and from my vantage point telling -- that Mormons make so much about the corruption of the biblical text, but they accept a text that is clearly corrupted while often raising suspicions about other texts for which we have no evidence of corruption.

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

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

It might help to serve you Rob, that Paul was not instantaneously called an Apostle. Looking at the internal history in the Book of Acts, he was not called to the Apostolic ministry until about 15 years after his conversion.

Once converted, I might also add, he did not decide to start his own church, like many people like to do today. He went to Jerusalem and learned from the disciples, but he did not tarry there. He then proceeded to preach Christ, speaking boldly of him.

A few years later we see Paul in Tarsus, his hometown, sought out by Barnabas. They would preach in Antioch in a more local manner, similar to that of an elder's or a bishop's ministry, more towards a Bishop's ministry as suggested by the end of Acts 11.

Not until the events of Acts 13 is when we see Paul called to the Apostolic ministry.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Yes, Jesus warned that some people will receive a "greater damnation" (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47). I agree. Hell is not one-size-fits-all. Jesus warned that some people will receive a greater punishment than others -- but all in the same place (Luke 12:46-48). I should point out that there are different Greek words in play here: krisis ("condemnation," John 5:29); krima ("judgment," Mark 12:40; Rom. 13:2; 1 Tim. 5:12); and diakrino (1 Cor. 11:29). And yes, these words can have different meanings in different contexts. But none of these passages teaches that the unrepentant wicked will live forever in immortal bodies in a glorious heavenly kingdom!

As I have explained, evangelical theology teaches that those who are truly redeemed in Christ will bear good fruit; those who don't show by their actions that they are not truly in Christ. So passages such as John 5:29 do not pose the problem for evangelical theology you think it does.

As for D&C 19, no, this doesn't help to convince me that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Quite to the contrary.

[Rob Bowman]

I feel like I'm at a fantasy convention: Mola Ram, Obiwan, Gandalf....maybe I would do better if I went by a name like Digory Kirke....

[Nathair/|\]

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!

I know of nothing in LDS theology (including the Bible) that eliminates you from being a prophet within your sphere of responsibility. Of course I could be wrong.

Yours under the fallible oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Rob Bowman]

Mucul Ajwalil,

You wrote:

It might help to serve you Rob, that Paul was not instantaneously called an Apostle. Looking at the internal history in the Book of Acts, he was not called to the Apostolic ministry until about 15 years after his conversion.

Once converted, I might also add, he did not decide to start his own church, like many people like to do today. He went to Jerusalem and learned from the disciples, but he did not tarry there. He then proceeded to preach Christ, speaking boldly of him.

A few years later we see Paul in Tarsus, his hometown, sought out by Barnabas. They would preach in Antioch in a more local manner, similar to that of an elder's or a bishop's ministry, more towards a Bishop's ministry as suggested by the end of Acts 11.

Not until the events of Acts 13 is when we see Paul called to the Apostolic ministry.

I respectfully disagree. According to Acts, Christ called Paul to be an apostle to the Gentiles from the very beginning (Acts 9:15-16; compare 22:14-21; 26:16-18). Paul also claims that it was in Christ's revelation to him at his conversion that Christ called Paul to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Gal. 1:13-16). Paul's ministry between about 36 and 48 was in the general region of Cilicia and Syria, and yes for much of that time based in Antioch, but that doesn't mean he wasn't yet an apostle. (Peter stayed in Jerusalem for years, but he was an apostle then, too.) When Peter visited Antioch and refused to eat with the Gentiles, Paul stood up to him as if they were equals (Gal. 2:11-21). But both Paul and Luke agree that Christ called Paul to his special ministry of taking the gospel to the Gentiles at the time of his conversion, not many years later.

[cinepro]

This thread definitely raises some interesting questions of definition and application.

For example, if we allow that "Prophets" can receive revelation dealing with business and organizational decisions for the Church, yet at the same time we also acknowledge that non-prophets can also have good or brilliant ideas when dealing with business, how can we make sure we don't ascribe "revelation" to a decision that was actually the result of just plain good business sense?

Eventually, we can reach the point where we look back at the history of Church leadership and cherry pick all the good things as examples of "prophecy" or inspiration, and write-off all the bad ideas (or times the Church has been on the brink of bankruptcy) as human fallacy. Which is a great way to inspire faith in Church leaders, but I'm not sure it holds any real value in a discussion of whether or not "the LDS Church is really led by prophets".

At the very least, we might ask how the Church would be different if it weren't led by authentic Prophets and Apostles who (sometimes) commune with God? Would we still have a Priesthood ban (or might there never have been one)? Would we still practice polygamy (or might we never have practiced it)? Would we not have smaller Temples all over the world? Would we not have a Perpetual Education Fund? Would we be OK with SSM?

[stemelbow]

I honestly felt like this discussion was going to be over, but alas it persists. Cool.

Rob 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.

Along with all the other questions I've raised in regards to your argument, which have in large part been unanswered (no biggie...since the argument as a whole holds little to no weight it seems) I would like to add, in light of the above (oh before I state it, I would like to add, just because I ask this question it does not follow that I necessarily agree that modern prophets do not have biblical precedent, I simply do not think they need to): And why shall prophets of our day need biblical precedent? Why assume that God would outline the process of prophet calling in the same way we read, or are able to interpret, the Bible? If God can do as He pleases, and inspire prophets as He pleases, then why assume they should be called, or somehow follow some biblical precedent?

You had also said (I know it was a bit of a side-note, deflection, but you brought it up so I feel inclined to comment).

It is ironic -- and from my vantage point telling -- that Mormons make so much about the corruption of the biblical text, but they accept a text that is clearly corrupted while often raising suspicions about other texts for which we have no evidence of corruption.

Such irony only is seen by those who accept scripture as infallible/inerrant (whichever term you prefer). Why is that? Because LDS accept the Bible as scripture in spite of its so-called corruption, and LDS accept the BoM, D&C etc as scripture in spite of their so-called corruption. We simply do not see a need to accept the assumption that scripture must be considered a priori incorruptible.

love,

stem

[stemelbow]

Cinepro,

For example, if we allow that "Prophets" can receive revelation dealing with business and organizational decisions for the Church, yet at the same time we also acknowledge that non-prophets can also have good or brilliant ideas when dealing with business, how can we make sure we don't ascribe "revelation" to a decision that was actually the result of just plain good business sense?

Better yet, since the criticism seems purely assumptive, why not allow the possibility that many are inspired by God to do good for their own stewardship? Such inspiration does not necessarily equate to prophetic revelation, but it can in some sense be revelation.

love,

stem

[Cold Steel]

The dirty little secret is that the contemporary LDS Church has replaced prophets with bureaucrats

[cdowis]

The fact is that for 15 prophets, seers and revelators, there's remarkably little (close to 0) prophecy, visions and revelations., it seems ridiculously plain.

Please tell us how you have this knowledge. Do you work with them on a daily basis?

Elder Rasmussen works with them on a regular basis, and witnessed one of those "ordinary" experiences for Elder Eyring as he performs his duties. You can read his experience here. These are not canonized revelations, but an example how the Lord leads His servants.

I personally witnessed a similar experience with Elder Eyring as he visited our stake. These revelations happen all the time.

It is tragic that you threw away your testimony based on ignorance.

[Thunderfire]

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!

It is true that you "could" be a prophet of God. Our scriptures give many examples of more than one prophet on the earth at a time. There are also scriptures which hint that in the latter days, we will have many prophets among us (Joel 2:28-32)

Yet if a person needs to tell someone that they are a prophet, they probably are not a prophet. We also may need to come to an agreement that there may be greater and lessor prophets based on degree of giftedness displayed! In my opinion, you will know the greater prophets by the giftedness in which the move and minister in. (But as I say this, I do not believe in greater or lessor prophets, but I do believe in degrees on which they have faith to minister in).

[cdowis]

Rob declares

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.

Let me see if I understand. Please pardon this broken record.

You belong to a church which has no claim for living prophets.

In addition, your knowledge of Biblical prophets seems lacking -- did not know that Joshua was a prophet. No response on Paul's declaration that the church would always have apostles and prophets. I suggest that you probably do not know whether apostles are also prophets.

Finally, we have little information on the organization of the church, and how those officers were called. You speak where the Bible itself is silent, again showing the theologian side of your nature. The theologians are more than happy to fill in where the scriptures are silent.

And you want to instruct us how prophets should be called.

[cinepro]

Cinepro,

Better yet, since the criticism seems purely assumptive, why not allow the possibility that many are inspired by God to do good for their own stewardship? Such inspiration does not necessarily equate to prophetic revelation, but it can in some sense be revelation.

love,

stem

I've long believed Sam Walton was guided by revelation from God in his founding and management of Wal-mart.

[cdowis]

I've long believed Sam Walton was guided by revelation from God in his founding and management of Wal-mart.

I have the same opinion of the founder of Chick fil a

The chain is famous for being closed on Sundays. In a interview with ABC News's Nightline, Dan Cathy (son of company owner S. Truett Cathy) told Vicki Mabrey the origin of that company decision. His father, Truett Cathy, the founder of Chik-fil-A, opened his first restaurant on a Tuesday and "by the time Sunday came, he was just worn out. And Sunday was not a big trading day, anyway, at the time. Another reason the he was closed on Sunday was due to religious convictions of the family to remain closed on the Christian "Sabbath". So he was closed that first Sunday and we've been closed ever since. He figured if he didn't like working on Sundays, that other people didn't either." Cathy quoted his father Truett as saying " 'I don't want to ask people to do that what I am not willing to do myself.'"