403 replies to this topic

[erichard]

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

...The dirty little secret is that the contemporary LDS Church has replaced prophets with bureaucrats—men who obtain their position by working their way up the ladder, something much more of a seniority system than a spirit-driven system. ...

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. ...

Hi Rob,

I agree with your assessment that the church seems to have lost something that it had in the beginning.  In particular a stream of revelation.

There is, of course, more than one spiritual gift.  The items Dan mentioned may be inspired, but they are not the gift of receiving D&C type oracles.  Where is that gift?

One could argue that the fruits of a spiritual gift do not bear "all year around", but come only "in season".  And people need time to study and learn to live by new revelation. Too many would overwhelm them.  The Old Testament oracles did not come back to back continuously, but came punctuated over many, many hundreds of years.

Thus, one can trust at some point the gift of D&C type oracles will return in its season to the Lord's restored church. But it has been a long time since any "Word of the Lord" oracles have been produced by a LDS President, so that is troublesome.

By the way, after President Young died, Presidents John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff both wrote Word of the Lord oracles.  These were not put into the LDS canon, but there is plenty of evidence to prove they were truly written by them.  The last Woodruff one was in 1889.  Thus it has been over 120 years since any evidence has existed of this particular spiritual gift in the LDS church.

You can read these revelations in these two pdf files:  Taylor    Woodruff

But maybe the problem is that the LDS church has been corrupted by the Gentiles as taught in the Book of Mormon.  Since the D&C is full of instructions the church is not living, why would the Lord give them any more "revelations and commandments"?

So until there is the prophesied "setting in order" and cleansing of the church, the church has what it has: very business like men taking good care of temporal things, but not bringing forth any more oracles.

I have faith that Zion (political Israel) is coming, and it would be a mistake for someone to reject the revelations given to the church the Lord set up to prepare for Zion.

Richard

Edited by erichard, 09 October 2010 - 09:18 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

Senator,

I have never been LDS, so I never converted to it nor apostatized from it. I am an evangelical Protestant. My argument is intended to show that LDS criticisms of a closed canon of Scripture and their claims to continued revelation ignore the dramatic changes between the days of Joseph and Brigham and the rest of LDS history.

Senator, on 09 October 2010 - 07:41 AM, said:

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?

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

cdowis, on 08 October 2010 - 07:40 PM, said:

A prophet's job is not to be a common fortune teller.... 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.

Since I do not and did not suggest that a prophet's job is to be fortune teller, your reply to my argument misses the mark.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 02:58 AM, said:

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.

How very unbiblical of you.  (Num 11:29; Amos 3:7; 1 Mac 14:41; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11)

At any rate, is your new argument that it is legitimate for God to reveal his will to biblical prophets on his own irregular timetable, but he can't reveal things on his own timetable to his modern prophets?  No double standard there.  

But, of course, we don't have to meet your imaginary Bowman standard on the frequency of revelation to prophets.  If we compare the quantity and frequency of revelation to contemporary prophets with the quantity and frequency of revelation to New Testament prophets, the contemporary prophets certainly make the grade.

PS If prophets must produce a certain quantity of revelation to meet the Bowman standard, what are we going to do with poor old Obadiah?

[Kenngo1969]

Bernard Gui, on 08 October 2010 - 10:16 PM, said:

Keep an eye out for she bears.

Bernard

Best.
Post.
On.
Thread.

I thought it should get its due.  Hell hath no fury like a she-bear ... Um, well, never mind.

(Although, to be fair, Mr. Bowman is not mocking the prophets for their coiffures, or for their lack thereof. )

Edited by Kenngo1969, 09 October 2010 - 09:58 AM.

[Thunderfire]

This is a comment I read today on facebook which I found interesting:

"There were prophets in the old testament that were shocked if anything significant happened without them foreseeing it." - Rick Joyner

This caused me to pause and think about the prophetic ministry we see around us today.  In Mosiah we find Ammon speaking of the difference between a prophet and a seer.  He says, "A seer can know of things which have past, and also of things which are to come.  By them shall all things be revealed, or rather shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them. Also, things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known..."

So a seer is a revelator and a prophet.  But a prophet is not necessarily a seer or revelator.

In Amos (3:7) we have that well know verse stating, "Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets..."

So with scripture as our guide, the prophet does not necessarily reveal the secret/hidden things.  They herald what God is about to do for the benefit of all mankind.  So the LDS can have prophetic ministry by what they have brought forth.  The problem is that we many times interchange these terms proclaiming a prophet a seer when they are not.

Now with the above quote as our guide, are the prophets in our day shocked when anything significant happens without them forseeing it and proclaiming it to the people?

[ERayR]

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

In another thread, Charles Dowis argued (as he often does) that orthodox Christianity made a serious mistake by replacing “prophets” with “theologians” and “scholars.” Supposedly, unfaithful Christians advanced the darkness of the Great Apostasy by rejecting living prophets in favor of intellectual analysis of the dead words on the page of the Bible. Charles is so glad that the Restoration has brought the living voice of God back into the world to guide the faithful and settle all doctrinal disputes with a “thus saith.” He speaks in glowing terms of his church having something we evangelicals don’t have—someone who could say, “I have seen.”

  The dirty little secret is that the contemporary LDS Church has replaced prophets with bureaucrats—men who obtain their position by working their way up the ladder, something much more of a seniority system than a spirit-driven system. The combined ages of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young on the dates they took office as LDS Church President and “Prophet” was 70 (Joseph was 24, Brigham 46; thus, their average age was 35). The average age of the next seven presidents at taking office was 73 (ranging between 62 and 82), while the average age of the most recent seven presidents at taking office was 83 (ranging between 73 and 93). The average age of the President of the Church, his two Counselors, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is 75. These are all supposedly “apostles.”

  Something dramatic happened to the LDS Church after Brigham died: it became an organization, run by a bureaucracy, rather than a movement led by charismatic men. Confirming the assessment that appointment as an apostle is a matter of seniority is the fact that it’s been a long time since the LDS Church president has been known for his visions and revelations. One fact (not the only fact) that reflects this change is that revelations added to LDS scripture went from a flood to a trickle to basically nothing. Joseph Smith was responsible for all of the LDS scriptures except for five texts added to D&C after his death (three chapters and two “official declarations,” the latter not really qualifying as revelatory). LDS Church Presidents are known not for what they “have seen” (most of them don’t even claim to “have seen” anything) but for being quintessential company men—faithful, loyal, lifelong servants of the organization. Mormons routinely criticize evangelicals who believe in a closed canon of Scripture. Yet the much-trumpeted continuing revelation of the LDS faith is almost entirely hypothetical: according to LDS theology, God could at any time choose to speak through his “living Prophet.” But he almost never does, unless you count platitudinous speeches urging the faithful to live morally commendable lives and to maintain their “testimony” to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church, and the system of living prophets and apostles—a system that is all but on life support.

  Please understand—I’m not criticizing such men as Hinckley and Monson. I’m simply pointing out, with regard to the LDS Church’s claim to be a prophetically led religion, that “the old gray mare, she ain’t what she used to be.”

YES!!

[ERayR]

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

Dan,

Hi there. I am honored that you took time to comment.

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. 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.

Just curious but how much time do you think elapsed between major revelations in the Bible?  You seem to think they came in a contioious flow.

[ERayR]

Rob Bowman, on 08 October 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

Ahab, I'm not putting down seniors. I'll be one myself in a few years. My point is a much more serious one.

You are right it is very serious that God is not doing things the way you think it should be done.

[ERayR]

Bunk, on 08 October 2010 - 03:45 PM, said:

It would be out of place for me to say, since I am not LDS.  

However, the Proclamation has frequently been referred to as an example of modern revelation.  Boyd K. Packer called it a revelation in his recent conference address, but in the published address this was edited so as to refer to the proclamation as a "guide".  Add to this the fact that Daniel Peterson did not include the proclamation in his list... I thought I would ask where it ranks.

Being a guide and being a revelation are not mutually exclusive.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Bill Hamblin, on 09 October 2010 - 09:54 AM, said:

How very unbiblical of you.  (Num 11:29; Amos 3:7; 1 Mac 14:41; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11)

Just what is it that you claim these texts teach that I supposedly do not accept?

(By the way, I wouldn't include 1 Maccabees in the canon of Scripture.)

You wrote:

Quote

At any rate, is your new argument that it is legitimate for God to reveal his will to biblical prophets on his own irregular timetable, but he can't reveal things on his own timetable to his modern prophets?  No double standard there.  

But, of course, we don't have to meet your imaginary Bowman standard on the frequency of revelation to prophets.  If we compare the quantity and frequency of revelation to contemporary prophets with the quantity and frequency of revelation to New Testament prophets, the contemporary prophets certainly make the grade.

Your assumption that I have altered my argument to some "new argument" is incorrect. The argument is the same. Irregularity of new revelations, by itself, is not the premise of my argument. It is part of a larger picture that you are apparently either not seeing or not wishing to acknowledge.

You wrote:

Quote

PS If prophets must produce a certain quantity of revelation to meet the Bowman standard, what are we going to do with poor old Obadiah?

Another proof that you are attacking a straw man of my argument instead of the real deal.

[Daniel Peterson]

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

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.

Precisely.

And since neither you nor I hold any brief for the Pentecostals and charismatics -- unless I'm mistaking your position -- I see no reason to discuss them here.  I don't judge whether somebody is a prophet by the crude measure of Frequency of Claimed Revelations, though it seems to me that you are perilously close to doing so.

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

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.

That depends upon which "current" you're focused upon.  The currents within Mormonism are not precisely the same as those in the world beyond Mormonism.  In any event, whether a purported revelation "swims" with or against the current says nothing at all directly, and very little indirectly, about the question of whether or not it's genuine.

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

What does the level of detail in the Exodus text have to do with anything here?

Your infallible Bible, which you invite all to venerate as the Word of God, concerns itself with the minutiae of the wood used for the furniture in the Tabernacle, and revelation to Moses, recorded in that Bible, directs him to call his brother to serve as his spokesman, and yet you dismiss recent Mormon revelations calling men to positions and authorizing smaller temple designs as too insignificant to be taken seriously?

If that's not a double standard, I've never seen one.

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

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.

And I'm not sure why you think there's some sort of minimum level of profundity or cosmic significance, beneath which communications from God are to be ruled non-revelatory.  Have you excised "Thou shalt not seethe a [goat] kid in his mother's milk" (Exodus 23:19] from the Bowman Bible?  What about the instructions in Numbers 15:4 concerning "a meat offering of a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of oil"?  Such things could be multiplied indefinitely (I chose these two specimens by opening the Pentateuch at random).  Do they meet your quality standard, or have you rejected them as non-revelations?

Anyway, Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead was revealed to him late in 1918. That's within the past century.  You dismissed it too, of course, but I'm not at all clear as to the grounds for your dismissal.

[Rob Bowman]

DeepThinker,

You wrote:

DeepThinker, on 08 October 2010 - 09:07 PM, said:

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.

I know this: LDS Church leaders are selected by other LDS Church leaders. I also know this: testimonies of having personally seen the risen Christ are not prerequisites for becoming an apostle in the LDS Church. That is all I really need to know.

You wrote:

Quote

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.

I reviewed the whole thread, and I never used this language. Where are you getting this?

[Rob Bowman]

TAO,

You wrote:

TAO, on 08 October 2010 - 10:04 PM, said:

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.

I don't see how the above comments in any way refute my point.

You wrote, regarding knowing whether an alleged prophet's revelations are true:

Quote

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

Yes, but it is not obvious how the Spirit provides the knowledge by which we determine if an alleged prophet's revelations are true. You and I will in fact have very different views on that question.

You wrote:

Quote

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".

This is all beside the point. Evangelicals believe in some sort of personal divine guidance, though we have differing views on exactly what is involved. The issue is publicly disseminated revelations that function as authoritative guidance for the whole people of God. Mormons make a big deal about having living prophets and claim this gives them something evangelicals don't have, but in fact these living prophets are simply administrators. There's nothing wrong with administrators -- they can be spiritually gifted to do what they do -- but they aren't prophets.

You wrote:

Quote

Your forgetting - it was always KNOWN that African Americans would eventually receive the priesthood.  We just didn't know when.

Apparently, someone forgot to give Bruce R. McConkie that memo. What is your basis for saying that people of color (the restriction was broader than African-Americans) were always promised that they would eventually receive the priesthood?

You wrote:

Quote

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.

I have a different take on the matter. It wasn't time because the LDS Church culture wasn't ready for it.

You wrote:

Quote

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.

If I had some reason to think God was behind the revelation at all, I would happily yield to God's timing. But absent any such evidence of divine inspiration, the timing is suspiciously convenient from a human, pragmatic perspective.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

A brilliantly funny bit of irrelevance.

Bernard Gui, on 08 October 2010 - 10:16 PM, said:

Keep an eye out for she bears.

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

I don't think my argument is that difficult to understand. It has nothing to do with the "intimate daily activities" of the LDS prophets.

Bernard Gui, on 08 October 2010 - 10:18 PM, said:

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

Bernard

[rockslider]

I don't care about the definitions of a prophet so much as it seems to me the "old gray mare" used to testify of their personal interactions with the Lord.  However, maybe it was more of an inbreed thing (i.e. it was always a given that the GA's are special witnesses who converse personally with the Lord, at a level well beyond the average member).

I remember my disappointment with Hinckley's answer to this very question during nationwide telecast interviews.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

Daniel Peterson, on 08 October 2010 - 11:01 PM, said:

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.

Since I don't believe, and my argument doesn't presuppose, "that there is a specific frequency of revelation that one must receive in order to be a prophet," I'm afraid your responses so far have not been nearly "adequate to the challenge."

[Daniel Peterson]

Aber doch.

Your complaint has been that claimed revelations to leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ over the past century have not met your (to me arbitrary and thoroughly unbiblical) standards of quality and frequency.

If that's not your complaint, will you please clarify what it might be?

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

Hi. You wrote:

ERayR, on 09 October 2010 - 12:07 PM, said:

Just curious but how much time do you think elapsed between major revelations in the Bible?  You seem to think they came in a contioious flow.

Nope, I've already addressed this, I think. God is free to raise up prophets whenever he likes. In the Bible, however, he never instituted a prophetic office that was perpetuated though an institutional process, as we see in the LDS Church. A person became a prophet because God spoke to that person, period. One did not rise to the office of prophet through years of faithful service in a religious organization.