403 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

Yes, God can do as he pleases. But you're ignoring the overall, big picture. If your leaders claim to be Spirit-led leaders, but act like bureaucrats except once every fifty years or so, the claim that they are prophets is merely hypothetical, not practical.

If God can do anything he wants, he can have the church led by apostles for its first generation and afterward have no more apostles, which is what God seems to have done at the end of the first century. I'm comfortable with that. Why aren't you?

[Rob Bowman]

kolipoli,

I was careful to make clear that the drying up of new additions to the canon was only one piece of the evidence.

If you're going to include mission calls, then you will have to do so on the evangelical side as well (fair is fair!). Tens of thousands of evangelicals affirm every year that God has called them to missions. If that's what you mean by continuing revelation, we got it covered!

kolipoki09, on 08 October 2010 - 03:34 PM, said:

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.

[cdowis]

My friend, I am sorry that my words have brought you to this point.

May I suggest that you read the proclamations -- Proclamation for the Family, and The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles.  Listen to Bruce R. McConkie's last talk in General Conference on his personal witness of Christ.  Pres. Bentley's speech on Pride (and Elder Uchtdof's recent talk on the same subject.

Read the talk on how missionaries are called and assigned their missions through revelation in the last conference.  I will look it up if you are interested.I have had personal experiences with those church leaders, both general authorities and local leaders.  I can tell you that I know that I have indeed seen, and know the church is lead by revelation.  Perhaps not dramatic events like the First Vision, but the Lord is leading the church.

I also believe that Christian churches are lead by inspiration as well.  But doctrine and ordinances are important.  If we want to go into the kingdom of heaven, Christ was very pointed that there is a narrow, straight path.  Paul taught us that the church would require prophets and apostles indefinitely, as well as the other offices.

If we want to have the church that Christ organized, the scriptures make clear that it is lead by those who have the authority, by those who have the keys on earth and in heaven.

The church has indeed grown up, and its not the church of our pioneer fathers, but with a membership of 13 million.  Some of the responsibilities have changed, but the basics are still there -- lead by Christ through prophets and apostles as Paul told us it would be.

Edited by cdowis, 08 October 2010 - 04:00 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

DeepThinker,

Perhaps, instead of sarcasm, you might offer something of substance. Just how do you think the current apostles and prophets are selected? When is the last time one of them claimed to have had anything like either a Damascus Road or Sacred Grove experience? Do any of the current apostles and prophets claim that Christ appeared to them and called them to their offices?

DeepThinker, on 08 October 2010 - 03:42 PM, said:

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 !

[Rob Bowman]

Lurker,

Are you trying to obscure the issue, or do you not even realize you are doing so?

The issue is when and how the alleged prophets are called, as part of the larger picture of whether they even act or function like prophets. Try to get the big picture of what I'm arguing.

Lurker, on 08 October 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

So when they got old they were no longer prophets?

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

So, for example, at what age did Thomas S. Monson understand that he would be "the prophet"? I understand a biography on him is out now, so perhaps someone here who has read it can answer this question.

I think it is clear that Monson didn't know he would occupy that position until shortly before it happened. When a sitting president of the LDS Church dies, there is speculation among Mormons as to who the next president will be. That wouldn't happen if "it was understood" who he would be.

Your example of Samuel, once again, proves my point. Samuel was not groomed by Eli to become the next prophet. The Lord did an end-run around Eli, who was not serving faithfully, and spoke directly to Samuel. Thus, Samuel was called to be a prophet when he was just a boy, and that call came directly from the Lord, not through a religious bureaucracy.

Moses, as you acknowledge, was also directly called by God. It wouldn't really be fair for me to cite him as part of my argument, though, because there apparently was no Israelite religion at the time.

Deborah, on 08 October 2010 - 03:49 PM, said:

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.

[stemelbow]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:52 PM, said:

stem,

Yes, God can do as he pleases. But you're ignoring the overall, big picture. If your leaders claim to be Spirit-led leaders, but act like bureaucrats except once every fifty years or so, the claim that they are prophets is merely hypothetical, not practical.

Perhaps I've missed something but I don't think so.  I would question whether your claim that LDS leaders claim to be Spirit-led, but act like bureaucrats except once very fifty years or so.  It can very well be that they are acting like Spirit-led leaders as they claim, but you have failed to understand what a Spirit-led leader would/should act like?  For one, i don't think you've defined, very well, anything between what you're calling bureaucrats and what would be Spirit-led leaders.  It appears you have let your assumption of that Spirit-led equals something other than LDS leaders, drive your explanation.

Quote

If God can do anything he wants, he can have the church led by apostles for its first generation and afterward have no more apostles, which is what God seems to have done at the end of the first century. I'm comfortable with that. Why aren't you?

I would be quite comfortable with that, if that is what happened.  It seems more likely that the great falling away took place, awaiting restoration.

love,
stem

[Daniel Peterson]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

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.

I don't know that that's true.  Do you?  On what basis?

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

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.

I was, of course, talking about mainstream Christianity, not the fringe movements that you mention.

"I can tell you with absolute certainty," the then-third-ranking man in the Vatican personally told me in Rome some years ago (and I think I have his words pretty exactly accurate), "that no pope has ever received a revelation."

I agree, of course.

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

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.

You set up quite a straw man when you claim that Joseph claimed to receive such revelations virtually every day.  He didn't.

Doctrine and Covenants 4, 12, 16, 40, etc. -- these are not vast, sweeping statements of cosmic doctrine.

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

The rest of these items are difficult to take seriously as anything but pragmatic decisions.

That's certainly not how those who were present when the revelations were received described what happened.

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

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.

And yet you presumably regard the vision that Peter received, and that is described in Acts 10, as a genuine divine revelation.  Peter recognizes that God cares about non-Jews.  And you call that a revelation?

I find it amusing that you dismiss President Hinckley's claim of a revelation directing the construction of small temples, while, at the same time, you almost certainly venerate the excruciatingly detailed description of the Tabernacle given in the book of Exodus as part of the inerrant Word of God.

You dismiss John Taylor's revelation calling Elders Grant and Teasdale to the Twelve as unworthy of being termed revelation, and yet, I assume, you believe that God spoke to Moses, as recorded in Exodus 4, and directed him to call Aaron as his spokesman before Pharaoh.

[CA Steve]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

Lurker,

Are you trying to obscure the issue, or do you not even realize you are doing so?

The issue is when and how the alleged prophets are called, as part of the larger picture of whether they even act or function like prophets. Try to get the big picture of what I'm arguing.

You brought up the age issue as support for your premise that church has "became an organization, run by a bureaucracy, rather than a movement led by charismatic men"

I am pointing out that age seems to have nothing to do with the qualifications to be a prophet or an apostle. Nor does the age at which they are called have anything to do with their qualifications.

I understand your overall point is that you think the amount of revelation since JS and BY has greatly diminished and that does not fit with your concept of what LDS ongoing revelation should be. Pointing out they are old is not relevent.

[stemelbow]

Hi Rob,

Quote

The issue is when and how the alleged prophets are called, as part of the larger picture of whether they even act or function like prophets.

I'm not sure what you think one must do to act or function like prophets.  Maybe it'd be best, for my understanding of your point, if you would define that.  I don't see why there is any reason to accept, what appears to be, nothing more than your assumption that a prophet must act as you define how they should act.

love,
stem

[Ahab]

Daniel Peterson, on 08 October 2010 - 04:09 PM, said:

"I can tell you with absolute certainty," the then-third-ranking man in the Vatican personally told me in Rome some years ago (and I think I have his words pretty exactly accurate), "that no pope has ever received a revelation."

I agree, of course.

Heh, really?  I don't.  I think most if not all people receive revelation from God every day, even though many if not most don't consider it to be revelation from God.

I think Rob's problem is mainly just not realizing that our current First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles receive revelation from God every day, too, and that he also doesn't recognize the fact that they are God's highest ranking administrators in his organized kingdom on Earth today.

[ELF1024]

Mr. Bowman;

I guess the real question, is what does a Prophet have to do in order for you to consider him a Prophet?

Raise the dead? Part the Red Sea? Call down fire from the sky?

Since you seem fit to call them bureaucrats... what makes a Prophet?

[Ahab]

ELF1024, on 08 October 2010 - 04:32 PM, said:

Mr. Bowman;

I guess the real question, is what does a Prophet have to do in order for you to consider him a Prophet?

Raise the dead? Part the Red Sea? Call down fire from the sky?

Since you seem fit to call them bureaucrats... what makes a Prophet?

I think Rob simply needs to be taught, rather than expecting him to come up with the right answers all by himself.

A prophet of God is someone who receives revelation from God, even if all God is revealing is what is true on an issue.  And No, the truth God reveals to a person doesn't have to be something that nobody else but God knows, as some people erroneously believe.  To receive revelation from God simply requires receiving revelation from God, about whatever God is revealing to a person, and what God reveals will always be true, every time, regardless of who receives that revelation from God.

Edited by Ahab, 08 October 2010 - 04:43 PM.

[Senator]

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—

Woe...back up the mule!

So are you claiming you believe the early LDS church was once led by prophets?

[CV75]

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

The dirty little secret
supposedly “apostles.”
run by a bureaucracy
quintessential company men
Mormons routinely criticize evangelicals
continuing revelation of the LDS faith is almost entirely hypothetical
platitudinous speeches
a system that is all but on life support.
“the old gray mare, she ain’t what she used to be.”

Only three things come to mind:
1. These pathetic put-downs and untruths are supported by spun "facts" that are hardly worth addressing. These statements simply do not resonate with either the promptings and power of the Holy Ghost or the Light of Christ, no matter what religion a professed Christian might be describing.
2. A movement led by charismatic men is not God's way.
3. "almost entirely hypothetical?" Either there is continuing revelation or there isn't. It's quality, not quantity. The hypothesis is proven in millions of people with the gift of the Holy Ghost getting the counsel, guidance, keys and direction the Lord extends to them through His prophets, seers and revelators as well as personally.

[Ceeboo]

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.

You know how much I love and respect you Dr. Dan, yes?


Not one of your best posts (IMHO!)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[BCSpace]

Quote

Is the Proclamation on the Family a revelation?

It is prophecy according to the Biblical definition of prophecy.  All talks given in conference certainly qualify as well.  Just because something new, unique, and exciting isn't being given doesn't mean there isn't dynamic prophecy in the Church.

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually, by biblical standards, modern LDS prophets and apostles stack up pretty good.  

How many revelations did Joshua or Aaron have compared to Moses?  Over the course of 600 years of Israelite history (1000-400 BC) we have less than two dozen prophets whose revelations were worth preserving.  And the next four hundred years there were none!  Compare the fact that the Pentateuch as a whole is about 3/4 the size of all the other prophetic writings in the OT combined.  Why the front-loading of revelations in the Mosaic age?

How many overt revelations did Peter have?  Less than half a dozen?  How many revelations are recorded for Christ's twelve apostles?  Is choosing an apostle by lot revelation?  Is the book of Acts a revelation?  How many apostolic letters include revelatory claims.  (Many are in fact, generally quite similar to conference talks.)  Are 3 John and Jude and Titus really the best reveled writings produced by any of the early apostles?  How many Gospels actually expressly claim to be revelation?  Why do we have Gospels by Mark and Luke rather than Timothy or Nathaniel, or some other apostle?  Why didn't Jesus personally record all his revelations?

So, LDS revelatory output is, in fact, overall quite comparable to that of the biblical period.  I smell a whiff of the standard Evangelical double standard operating here.

[kolipoki09]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:55 PM, said:

kolipoli,

I was careful to make clear that the drying up of new additions to the canon was only one piece of the evidence.

If you're going to include mission calls, then you will have to do so on the evangelical side as well (fair is fair!). Tens of thousands of evangelicals affirm every year that God has called them to missions. If that's what you mean by continuing revelation, we got it covered!

Rob, thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts, and that of others on this board.

Revelations on the same scale as that of Joseph Smith are just as much a part of the Church today as they were 175 years ago. The D&C, like many of Paul's pastoral epistles, deal directly with Church administration, policies, practices, and missionary work. The current apostles and prophets continue to produce lengthy treatments of doctrine from the Church's press, even if these works aren't included in the current "canon" of scripture. Many of the sections of the D&C included in the current edition weren't even canonized until after Joseph Smith's death. His inspired words and the words of his successors have laid the foundation from whence the current Church administers and functions. The number of sections added to the Doctrine and Covenants has relatively tapered off, but that is not to say that God is no longer operative in the Church in the same way that he was 180 years earlier. My personal belief is that there's no reason to "fix" a toy that isn't broken. Church members are already having a hard enough time understanding the fundamental tenets of the Restored Gospel...one of the reasons why the words of Joseph Smith's and other revelations are continually reiterated.

Comparatively speaking, most of the apostles and prophets mentioned in the Bible didn't author epistles or revelations either....but a number of them did. Some dominate the canon, others are relatively minuscule...but that is not to say that God was not as actively involved in the lives of His living oracles "off paper" as he was "on paper."

Latter-day Saints find it troubling that many fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians are opposed to the idea that God would call a prophet today or that they could add to the existing canon. Our witness is that in this dispensation, the canon has expanded and will continue to expand as the Lord sees fit. We're not saying God isn't operative in your life or the lives of other Evangelicals, nor that we have a monopoly on truth when it comes to a knowledge of God.

The number of revelations each prophet or apostle has added to the canon is not a definitive way of judging whether or not one has been called of God, or whether God is operative in one's life.

[Ceeboo]

Bill Hamblin, on 08 October 2010 - 05:39 PM, said:

  I smell a whiff of the standard Evangelical double standard operating here.

I smell something too but I am not certain it's coming from the Evangelical.  


Peace,
Ceeboo