403 replies to this topic

[Balzer]

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

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

Good question. Also, I would like to know who decides and how it is decided. I ask because I think sometimes revelations are later determined not to be revelations. Who decides that and how is it decided?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[semlogo]

How charismatic was Moses? Not very, if we believe what's written about him.

[cdowis]

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.

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?

A prophet's job is not to be a common fortune teller.  His primary duty is the use the keys the Lord has given him to administer and govern the church.  We know that Christ ordained his apostles ("Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you"), gave them the autority and the keys were given to Peter to bind and unbind, to seal on earth and heaven.

General church and local leaders are called by inspiration, and revelation, and given their authority and keys by the laying on of hands by one having the authority.  This authority did not come from attending a school, or seminary, but from heavenly beings ordaining the Prophet and his associates.  This authority was then passed on to those called by the Lord, even as Aaron was called and ordained by a prophet.

Temples are built, and the keys to bind on earth and heaven are used to seal couples for time and eternity.  The various affairs of the Kingdom of God are conducted through this authority -- missionary work, the priesthood quorums, the Relief Society, the welfare program, the educational programs, etc.

These are the primary duties of the apostles and prophets.  If revelation becomes necessary, they are there to receive and validate that revelation, such as extending the priesthood to all worthy males, and the inclusion of new revelations into the canonized scripture.

Finally, their duties include training the new leaders, and admonishing the saints and calling the world to repentence in General Conference and other meetings.

You are the one missing the big, overall picture.  The role of the prophet is not the fortune teller, but to use his priesthood authority and keys to administer to the church.  I know from personal experience that they fulfill their duties with inspiration and revelation.

Edited by cdowis, 08 October 2010 - 07:46 PM.

[DeepThinker]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:58 PM, said:

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?

I don't know the details of the process for selecting Church leaders and I don't know about any of their personal spiritual experiences - and I'm sure you don't either.
When you say "the big lie", you're saying you have knowledge that  you simply don't posess. The best you could honestly say is that you have doubts , suspicions, or simply don't know.  Calling the process 'the big lie" is a lie - and deserves sarcastic criticism.

[Bernard Gui]

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

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

Joseph Smith is in good company.

Bernard

[John Larsen]

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.

God hasn't gone away, He has just become more concerned with the administrative minutia of running a bureaucracy. It's not like there have been really important questions dividing mankind in the last 150 years. I mean, he gave us important information like the detecting of demons through handshakes. Things like when does life begin, human evolution, nuclear weapons, embryonic research, race, climate change, global economics and the like just don't raise to the level of God's interest.

[TAO]

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.

Ah yes, perhaps you remember, that Brigham himself always felt bad that he wasn't receiving quite the same revelation as Joseph had.  However, he realized that much had already been revealed, and that much else could not be spoken of.  Yes, there are mysteries they know, which they cannot tell.

Quote

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.

Well um... isn't it obvious how your supposed to know if they are true... by the Spirit?

Quote

Your quick list off the top of your head rather proves my point, especially when they are examined with some care. The only alleged revelation in your list that is in the league of what Joseph claimed to get on almost a daily basis is Joseph F. Smith's vision. The rest of these items are difficult to take seriously as anything but pragmatic decisions.

You need to look again - revelation isn't always received in blinding visions and massive miracles.  Look at personal revelation for example.  Not blinding, nor massive.  Simply personal.  God choses to revel himself in the way he does for some pretty good reasons, so I'd suggest you ask him what those reasons are before you say "those aren't revelation".

Quote

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.

Your forgetting - it was always KNOWN that African Americans would eventually receive the priesthood.  We just didn't know when.  Just a few years before, several AAs wrote a letter to the prophet, but he told them that it wasn't the time - in fact, he didn't know it was the time until it was.  And it was unexpected and glorious.  Now I'd call that revelation.

God's time isn't your time, remember.  It doesn't matter if 1870 was the right time for you, it wasn't the right time for God, and that is plenty good enough.

[Bernard Gui]

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

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.”

Keep an eye out for she bears.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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

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.

And you know of their intimate daily activities....how?

Bernard

Edited by Bernard Gui, 08 October 2010 - 10:49 PM.

[Bernard Gui]

John Larsen, on 08 October 2010 - 10:02 PM, said:

God hasn't gone away, He has just become more concerned with the administrative minutia of running a bureaucracy. It's not like there have been really important questions dividing mankind in the last 150 years. I mean, he gave us important information like the detecting of demons through handshakes. Things like when does life begin, human evolution, nuclear weapons, embryonic research, race, climate change, global economics and the like just don't raise to the level of God's interest.

Revelations on climate change?    

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

What is a charismatic man, in your opinion?




Given the system of selecting the President of the Church (the senior member of the Quorum of the 12),
which LDS prophets lobbied, schemed, bribed, plotted, murdered, or planned their way into the Presidency?

Given your criticism of the leadership of the Church, do you know the manner in which a new apostle (and potential
President) is chosen?

Bernard

Edited by Bernard Gui, 08 October 2010 - 10:53 PM.

[Daniel Peterson]

Ceeboo, on 08 October 2010 - 05:12 PM, said:

Not one of your best posts (IMHO!)

Perhaps.  I've written many brilliant posts, of course, and not every line of Shakespeare or of Homer is equally memorable.  Such is life in this fallen, mortal state.

But it was perfectly adequate to the challenge.

Rob Bowman appears to believe that there is a specific frequency of revelation that one must receive in order to be a prophet.  He doesn't inform us what the precise figure is, but seems to imagine that, while Jonah and the other minor prophets of the Bible qualify despite the brevity of their books (when they've even written books) and the paucity of their known revelations, Latter-day Saint prophets after the death of Brigham Young do not.

I think this is demonstrably false, at least if one uses the Bible (as Mr. Bowman presumably does) as one's standard.

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

You wrote:

stemelbow, on 08 October 2010 - 04:08 PM, said:

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.

Not at all. I have only assumed what Mormons routinely assume when championing Joseph Smith as marking the glorious return of ongoing revelation and living prophets. I am simply pointing out that the LDS Church hasn't had a "prophet like Joseph" since Brigham died (if we even count Brigham as one). Your response amounts to an admission of my point, while you insist that your presidents can be inspired prophets even though in terms of what they do outwardly they appear to be bureaucrats.

I had written:

"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?"

You replied:

Quote

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.

You've got a chicken-and-egg problem here. Did the falling away cause the loss of apostles and prophets, or vice versa?

In the NT, Christ appointed the apostles himself. He stopped doing this, and by the end of the first century the church had no living apostles. According to LDS doctrine, Christ stopped calling new apostles for 17 centuries, and then in 1820 he called Joseph. The "falling away" apparently didn't stop Christ from doing this in 1830, so I don't see why it would stop him from doing it in 130. Whereas LDS doctrine claims that Christ stopped calling apostles and prophets for 17 centuries, I simply claim he stopped doing it for 20 centuries (so far).

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I had written:

"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."

You replied:

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

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

I refer to publicly disseminated revelations. We can review the history of the LDS Church's leaders' teachings and see the difference. I gave some evidence to support my conclusion.

I had mentioned that Pentecostals and charismatics have claimed numerous revelations in the past century. You replied:

Quote

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

The LDS Church is even more of a "fringe movement" than the Pentecostals and charismatics. What's your point? That Episcopalians and Baptists don't claim to be led by prophets? This isn't news.

You wrote:

Quote

"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.

So do I.

You wrote:

Quote

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.

Fair point. I concede that my statement was hyperbole.

I pointed out that most of the LDS "revelations" in the post-Brigham era look like pragmatic decisions, not revelations. You replied:

Quote

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?

Huh? Peter was acting against his Jewish culture's beliefs; they thought of Gentiles as dogs (back when dogs were not typically household pets!). The revelation opening the priesthood to people of color was a concession to the culture. Peter swam against the current; Kimball swam with the current.

You wrote:

Quote

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.

What does the level of detail in the Exodus text have to do with anything here? Dan, you are missing the big picture, as others here are also doing. My point was that such revelations as giving blacks the priesthood and deciding to build smaller temples are the best examples of LDS revelation you can find from the past century. In reply, you are selecting out from the revelations of the Bible examples that superficially look similar to the alleged LDS revelations. This would be a valid argumentative strategy only if those biblical texts were also the standout revelations of their time, which of course they were not.

You wrote:

Quote

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.

Same problem, second verse. If we simply accept both the LDS and biblical historical claims at face value, I have mighty good reasons to think Moses was a prophet (the plagues, parting the Red Sea, receiving the Ten Commandments, etc., etc.), but slim evidence indeed for regarding Taylor as a prophet. Again, Taylor's calling Grant and Teasdale to the Twelve is apparently your best example of a prophetic revelation to Taylor.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

Ahab, on 08 October 2010 - 04:40 PM, said:

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

I'm always open to learning something new. Fire away.

You wrote:

Quote

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.

Okay, by this definition, I am a prophet. God has given me revelation in Scripture, and I have received it.

[Rob Bowman]

Senator,

You wrote:

Senator, on 08 October 2010 - 04:59 PM, said:

Woe...back up the mule!

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

No, I am saying that even if I concede that Joseph Smith was a prophet, the evidence shows that the presidents of the LDS Church at least since the death of Brigham Young have been PINOs (Prophets In Name Only).

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Your response assumes that I hold to the view that God's people always need to have living prophets and continuing revelation. I don't. Your review of biblical history illustrates the point that God sometimes has living prophets issuing new revelations or writing new scriptures and sometimes, even for very long periods of time, he doesn't. Prophets in the Bible appeared whenever God chose to reveal himself to someone; it was unpredictable and the timing was irregular. Prophets in the LDS Church since Brigham Young died have been appointed through a quite regular, bureaucratically run process. The difference is quite clear.

Thanks for the support for my case.

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

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.

[cdowis]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 02:23 AM, said:

"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?"

Let's see how Paul answered that question.  

Quote

Eph 4 [11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Paul tells us about the organization of the church, with apostles and prophets, and why they are necessary and how long we can expect to find them in the church.

Hopefully you will understand and follow the words of the prophet and apostle Paul.  You may not accept the prophets and apostles of the LDS church, but it is clear that we will find them in the true and living church of Christ.

Edited by cdowis, 09 October 2010 - 08:00 AM.

[cdowis]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 02:44 AM, said:

If we simply accept both the LDS and biblical historical claims at face value, I have mighty good reasons to think Moses was a prophet (the plagues, parting the Red Sea, receiving the Ten Commandments, etc., etc.), but slim evidence indeed for regarding Taylor as a prophet. Again, Taylor's calling Grant and Teasdale to the Twelve is apparently your best example of a prophetic revelation to Taylor.

I think we could compare JS with Moses, that flood of revelation.  And if you look at the book of Joshua, you will find a parallel to our prophets today.Again, your view of a prophet is a fortune teller, but Joshua was a prophetic administrator to the people of Israel.

For example:

Quote

Joshua 1 [5] There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
[6] Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.
[7] Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.
[8] This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
[9] Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.
[10] Then Joshua commanded the officers of the people, saying,
[11] Pass through the host, and command the people, saying, Prepare you victuals; for within three days ye shall pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which the LORD your God giveth you to possess it.
[12] And to the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to half the tribe of Manasseh, spake Joshua, saying,
[13] Remember the word which Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, saying, The LORD your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this land.

Sounds alot like a talk in General Conference. Pres. Monson may not be a Moses, but he is certainly a Joshua.

When it was necessary to receive revelation, he was a seer and revelator, but most of the time he spent his time giving counsel, keeping them on the correct path through inspiration and his authority as prophetic leader.

It was unnecessary to repeat the revelations that they received thru Moses.

Edited by cdowis, 09 October 2010 - 07:58 AM.

[Senator]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 02:50 AM, said:

Senator,

You wrote:



No, I am saying that even if I concede that Joseph Smith was a prophet, the evidence shows that the presidents of the LDS Church at least since the death of Brigham Young have been PINOs (Prophets In Name Only).

This is a very weird angle from which to make an argument.

I mean, you've laid out for us a hypothetical "what would be", but yet is not, concerning your conversion and subsequent apostasy from the LDS faith.

Even if what you say is true, is there value in adhering to a "remnant" religion? I mean, after all, you adhere to one, right? Is the remnant religion still valuable?