403 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

Daniel Peterson, on 09 October 2010 - 12:16 PM, said:

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.

As I have already stated, this is not even close to my argument.

You wrote:

Quote

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.

It is part of a larger picture and pattern that I claim provides some evidence against the claim that the LDS Church is run by prophets. Isolating the point from the larger context naturally robs it of its significance in my argument.

You wrote:

Quote

Your infallible Bible, which you invite all to venerate as the Word of God,...

You can stop saying this now. I don't venerate the Bible and don't suggest anyone else do so.

You continued:

Quote

...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.

It would be, if that were my argument. It isn't.

Continuing in that vein, you wrote:

Quote

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.

Sigh. Dan, you're much smarter than this. That wasn't my argument at all.

You wrote:

Quote

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.

No, I didn't dismiss it. I specifically mentioned it as an isolated exception to the generalization about the lack of any new canonical revelations since the time of Brigham Young. And I specifically pointed out that it's been a long time since that revelation.

[Lachoneus]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 12:38 PM, said:

God is free to raise up prophets whenever he likes. In the Bible, however, he never . . ..

So, God is free to raise up prophets whenever He likes, but only in those manners He has previously employed?

That can't be right. An omnipotent God should be able to raise up prophets whenever and however He likes.

So what's the problem?

[zerinus]

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.�

I am not sure the Apostasy can be defined in those terms. Prophets are also in a sense theologians and scholars, at least gospel scholars; but all scholars are not prophets.

Quote

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.

Again, that is a questionable way of describing the Apostasy. There was an Apostasy; but it may not have looked quite like that.

Quote

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.�

He is quite right of course. I entirely agree with that.

Quote

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

So you are tacitly acknowledging that the LDS Church did (once upon a time at least) have prophets and Apostles; but does not appear to have them now! Well, that is a step in the right direction I am sure! Keep trying and eventually you will get there!

Quote

. . . 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.�

In those days the Church was just beginning to be formed. It was being organized from the scratch. It had no historical continuity to fall back on. It was not a Reformation, but a Restoration. Those observations you have made concerning the relative youthfulness of the early Church leaders were incidental to the formative condition of the Church at that time. You will also recall from LDS history that nearly half of those early Church leaders apostatized or were excommunicated at some point in their careers�although many of them returned to the Church at a later date, humbled and repentant. Their youthfulness had the downside of inexperience, which resulted in their making serious mistakes early on in their careers, which not only caused them unnecessary pain, but also caused the Church unnecessary trouble. Now that the Church is mature and fully organized, before somebody rises to high positions he has the opportunity to serve and gain experience, and the Lord has many opportunities to test and prove him, and give him the experience needed to be an effective leader without making the kinds of mistakes that some of the first leaders of the Church made during its formative years.

Quote

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.

LOL! It became �an organization� with �bureaucracy� long before Brigham Young died. That is what it became even before Joseph Smith died.

Quote

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.

First of all, �appointment as an apostle� is not �a matter of seniority�. You don�t become an Apostle by �seniority�. You become an Apostle when you are called to be such by revelation to the First Presidency. It is just that a rule of seniority within the quorum of the Twelve Apostles is observed, almost as an act of courtesy rather than anything else. All Apostles are equal; but just as you might have more respect for your older brother than a younger, the Twelve Apostles tend to give deference to the longer serving, more experienced ones, rather than to the less experienced ones. The President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gets to that position by virtue of his seniority, rather than for some other reason, because in all other respects they are equal!

Quote

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).

You have got your facts wrong again. That �flood� became a �trickle� during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. At the beginning of the Doctrine and Covenants it lists the revelations and dates when they were received. The greatest number of revelations were received in the earliest days, while the Church was being organized; and as the church became progressively more organized, the need (hence number) of those revelations diminished. Here is a quick list:

1829: 14 revelations
1830: 19 revelations
1831: 37 revelations
1832: 18 revelations
1833: 12 revelations
1834: 5 revelations
1835: 3 revelations
1836: 3 revelations
1837: 1 revelation

In fact, back in those days people began to voice �doubts� about the Church and its prophet long before people like you thought of that idea. Here is a quote:

�Some people say I am a fallen Prophet, because I do not bring forth more of the word of the Lord, Why do I not do it? Are we able to receive it? No! Not one in this room.� (Teachings, p.194.)

Sounds familiar? Most of Joseph Smith�s revelations were in relation to the organization of the Church. Once the Church was organized, the need for those revelations diminished. If you are looking for the kinds of revelations that teach great truths and mysteries, the Lord has made it clear that the Church is not yet ready for them. For example, the Lord has promised to give us the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon when we are ready for it. The fact that He hasn�t means that we are not yet ready.

Quote

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.

The fact that they don�t claim, or publicize that they have seen anything does not mean that they haven�t. The condition of the world today is not conducive to their publicizing what they have seen and what they haven�t.

Quote

Mormons routinely criticize evangelicals who believe in a closed canon of Scripture.

And rightly so!

Quote

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.

LOL! The evidence that he has, or there has been, is indeed in the Book of Mormon. When you have managed to successfully dismiss the Book of Mormon, then we can talk about other things. The Book of Mormon comes first. Let�s talk about that first, before jumping ahead too far.

Quote

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.�

Okay, you have got me amused now. I am laughing. Now that I have stopped laughing we can start talking about the Book of Mormon. What do you think about it? How do you read the Book of Mormon?

Edited by zerinus, 09 October 2010 - 01:09 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

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

* the consistently old ages of the prophets at the time they take their office as contrasted to Joseph (24) and Brigham (46)
* the fact that these "prophets" obtain their office through what looks suspiciously like a seniority system
* the fact that Joseph and Brigham were theological innovators while all of the prophets since then have been theological conservators
* the flood of new canonical or otherwise publicly disseminated revelations through Joseph compared to the trickle since his death
* the fact that two of the most notable "revelations" of the past 120 years were pragmatic decisions easily accounted for as changes to maintain the viability of the religion (its survival, in the case of OD1)

One could add to the above the following consideration:

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

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

Hope this helps.

Daniel Peterson, on 09 October 2010 - 12:35 PM, said:

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]

Lachoneus,

See my recent reply to Dan Peterson for an explanation of the logic of my argument. God can raise up prophets whenever and however he likes; however, this doesn't mean we can't look at the facts to assess whether or not the alleged prophets really were raised up by God.

Lachoneus, on 09 October 2010 - 12:47 PM, said:

So, God is free to raise up prophets whenever He likes, but only in those manners He has previously employed?

That can't be right. An omnipotent God should be able to raise up prophets whenever and however He likes.

So what's the problem?

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

No, I'm not acknowledging that the LDS Church once had prophets and apostles. I've already addressed that misunderstanding once.

Had the LDS Church really been a bureaucratic organization while Joseph Smith was still alive, the split between the Brigham Young camp and the Joseph Smith III camp would probably not have occurred.

Your table of Joseph's D&C revelations stops in 1837. Anyone who knows that Joseph died in 1844 will immediately be suspicious of why you stopped with the year 1837. The answer is simple: going further spoils your argument. Revelations from Joseph added to D&C included 8 from 1838, 3 from 1839, none from 1840, and 9 from the years 1841 through 1843. I agree that Joseph's revelations tapered down somewhat after 1833, but 20 of his revelations from the last six years of his life (not counting the first few months of 1844 when he died) made it into D&C, as compared to the 2 that were added in the next four years by Taylor and Young and the *one* that has been added in the 163 years since then (not counting OD1 and OD2).

See my recent reply to Dan Peterson for the significance of these facts in the context of my whole argument.

I'm happy to talk about the Book of Mormon and have done so a lot, but this forum entertains discussions on all aspects of LDS religion and apologetics, so I won't agree to limit myself to the Book of Mormon.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 01:22 PM, said:

Zerinus,

No, I'm not acknowledging that the LDS Church once had prophets and apostles. I've already addressed that misunderstanding once.

Then there is something amiss about your line of criticism. If the LDS Church never had true prophets and Apostles, what difference does it make to you that they appeared to receive more revelations then than they do now? Why should you consider that a disappointment?

Quote

Had the LDS Church really been a bureaucratic organization while Joseph Smith was still alive, the split between the Brigham Young camp and the Joseph Smith III camp would probably not have occurred.

You lost me there. I don't see the connection.

Quote

Your table of Joseph's D&C revelations stops in 1837. Anyone who knows that Joseph died in 1844 will immediately be suspicious of why you stopped with the year 1837. The answer is simple: going further spoils your argument. Revelations from Joseph added to D&C included 8 from 1838, 3 from 1839, none from 1840, and 9 from the years 1841 through 1843. I agree that Joseph's revelations tapered down somewhat after 1833, but 20 of his revelations from the last six years of his life (not counting the first few months of 1844 when he died) made it into D&C, as compared to the 2 that were added in the next four years by Taylor and Young and the *one* that has been added in the 163 years since then (not counting OD1 and OD2).

The fact remains that most of Joseph Smith's revelations related to the organization of the Church; and when that organization was in place the need (hence frequency) of those revelations diminished. The fact that he was being criticized by the skeptics of his day for not bringing enough revelations should be a warning to you (and others who voice the same criticisms) that there is something wrong with that way of thinking. Some will always think that the grass on the other side is greener no matter what.

Quote

I'm happy to talk about the Book of Mormon and have done so a lot, but this forum entertains discussions on all aspects of LDS religion and apologetics, so I won't agree to limit myself to the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is the evidence that you (or anyone else) needs to know that the Church is true, and is led by prophets and Apostles. Those who insist on "looking beyond the mark" will stumble.

[Nathair]

I offer this:


Beyond what has been mentioned in this thread, I submit that we as a church (especially me) need to repent and be more valiant in doing the things the Lord has already asked of us.

[Daniel Peterson]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 12:44 PM, said:

You can stop saying this now. I don't venerate the Bible and don't suggest anyone else do so.

A quibble over a word.

Do you, or do you not, regard the Bible -- which contains accounts of numerous purported revelations on subjects of seemingly very small import and features many prophets who claimed to have received only one divine revelation, and not a few who wrote nothing at all -- as the (inerrant?) Word of God?

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

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

* the consistently old ages of the prophets at the time they take their office as contrasted to Joseph (24) and Brigham (46)
* the fact that these "prophets" obtain their office through what looks suspiciously like a seniority system
* the fact that Joseph and Brigham were theological innovators while all of the prophets since then have been theological conservators
* the flood of new canonical or otherwise publicly disseminated revelations through Joseph compared to the trickle since his death
* the fact that two of the most notable "revelations" of the past 120 years were pragmatic decisions easily accounted for as changes to maintain the viability of the religion (its survival, in the case of OD1)

One could add to the above the following consideration:

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

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

Hope this helps.

I understood and understand your argument.  I just don't find it even remotely dispositive.

Your observations, above, can easily be seen as confirming your faith that the leaders of my church aren't prophets, but they scarcely constitute refutations of my faith that the leaders of my church are prophets.  How God calls his prophets (e.g., with or without burning bush), how old they are (whether very young, like Samuel, or very old, like Moses and the father of John the Baptist), whether they are priests (like Ezekiel) or seemingly critical of priests and priesthood (like many of the other Hebrew prophets), whether they received many profound revelations or only one simple revelatory command, whether they innovated or called upon their hearers to return to old commandments and truths (there are Old Testament prophets who perform each of these functions), is of no particular relevance, in my mind, to the question of whether or not they were prophets.  I allow God the freedom to communicate as frequently as he wishes, on any topic that he wishes to address.

[TAO]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 12:29 PM, said:

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

Lol, I'm not trying to refute your point, I am simply saying, a prophet has no control over when he can prophesy.

Prophesies come from God when he chooses to use them.  Prophets have no control over when they come, how often they come, or which ones they can reveal to other people.  They can't even control the technique of prophecy that comes upon them at the time.  So pointing at prophets and saying "Why didn't you say this earlier", or "Why didn't you see it in a vision" is kinda pointless because they ultimately have no control over it - only Heavenly Father does.

Quote

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.

Read James.  Ask God, and he will give you a sure answer - that's how you know.

Quote

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.

No, actually it's not besides the point.  If you don't believe God can answer your questions through personal revelation, I don't see how you can even tell whether a religion is correct or not.  Personal Revelation is an answer from God, and if you don't have that, you are lost in a deep dark fog.

Quote

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?

Said by Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young.  And again restated when Decl. 2 was released.  Also, as said, nine years before, the response was given, "not yet".

A link please to the McConkie quote.

Quote

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

Quite on the contrary, if you remember, Joseph Smith and many of the Mormons at the time were quite abolitionist.  Yet they still imposed this temporary restriction to the priesthood.

Quote

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.

"And it came to pass that he said unto me: Show me a ^asign by this power of the Holy Ghost, in the which ye know so much." (Jacob 7:13)
"And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a ^asign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words." (Alma 30:43)
"They said therefore unto him, What ^asign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee?  what dost thou work?" (John 6:30)

Why do you demand a sign?  Don't you know that "For if there be no ^afaith among the children of men God can do no ^bmiracle among them; wherefore, he showed not himself until after their faith." (Ether 12)

Why do you refuse to show faith, if you would like miracles so badly?

[Bernard Gui]

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

* the consistently old ages of the prophets at the time they take their office as contrasted to Joseph (24) and Brigham (46)

By prophets, of course, you mean the Presidents of the Church. When a man enters the Quorum of 12, he is ordained an Apostle,
prophet, seer, and revelator. For example,  John Taylor was ordained at age 30, but Elder Packer at age 45. The obvious reason
for the young ages of the earlier Apostles was that most male members were young men. As the body of the Priesthood increased
in age and experience, so did the age of the men called to serve as Apostles. Furthermore, the process of succession to the
Presidency was established after Brigham Young - the senior Apostle becomes the President of the Church - and it was only natural
that older men would thereafter hold that position,

Quote

* the fact that these "prophets" obtain their office through what looks suspiciously like a seniority system

Well, that's because it is a seniority system. The senior Apostle becomes the President. The system eliminates schemes and
machinations to achieve power, unless you are willing to entertain the notion that the men who become President somehow
eliminated their older "competition" on their way up the system. It's an ingenious system of succession. I believe
it is inspired revelation of how God wants his Church to be organized in the latter days.

Quote

* the fact that Joseph and Brigham were theological innovators while all of the prophets since then have been theological conservators

They certainly were the builders of the edifice of the Church. Another function of the Prophet is to insure the edifice continues
to withstand the floods.

Quote

* the flood of new canonical or otherwise publicly disseminated revelations through Joseph compared to the trickle since his death

This is why I asked you how you knew the intimate daily activities of the 15 LDS Apostles. A revelation does not have to be publicly disseminated
to be a revelation for the Church.

Quote

* the fact that two of the most notable "revelations" of the past 120 years were pragmatic decisions easily accounted for as changes to maintain the viability of the religion (its survival, in the case of OD1)

They can easily be accounted for in the way the men who received them and their associates said it was done.

Quote

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

Which is the whole point of the Restoration...to put into place the organized and functioning Kingdom of God on earth in preparation for the coming of
the Son of Man. That is God's sovereign pleasure for these last days.


Who do you think the prophets and apostles of the Didache were?

Bernard

Edited by Bernard Gui, 09 October 2010 - 03:05 PM.

[cdowis]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 12:44 PM, said:

It is part of a larger picture and pattern that I claim provides some evidence against the claim that the LDS Church is run by prophets. Isolating the point from the larger context naturally robs it of its significance in my argument.

I have attempted to demonstrate that you do not understand the role of a prophet, e.g. Joshua.  You have chosen not to respond, so we can conclude that the basis of your "big picture" is based on ignorance and flawed assumptions.  Joshua was certainly a prophet, but he was also, to use your term, a bureaucrat.  There are other examples in the scriptures.

I understand why you continue to ignore my posts because my argument is self-evident.

Edited by cdowis, 09 October 2010 - 03:17 PM.

[Kenngo1969]

Nathair, on 09 October 2010 - 01:52 PM, said:

I offer this:


Beyond what has been mentioned in this thread, I submit that we as a church (especially me) need to repent and be more valiant in doing the things the Lord has already asked of us.

Nice post, but no "Oaks"?

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Clearly, you do not understand my argument, as you even acknowledge at a couple of points. My argument has nothing to do with Joseph not bringing enough revelations.

If your claim was true that the Book of Mormon is all the evidence I need to know that the LDS Church is true, I would of course agree that the LDS Church is true. But I see the Book of Mormon as an apologetic liability for Mormonism, not an apologetic asset.

zerinus, on 09 October 2010 - 01:50 PM, said:

Then there is something amiss about your line of criticism. If the LDS Church never had true prophets and Apostles, what difference does it make to you that they appeared to receive more revelations then than they do now? Why should you consider that a disappointment?


You lost me there. I don't see the connection.


The fact remains that most of Joseph Smith's revelations related to the organization of the Church; and when that organization was in place the need (hence frequency) of those revelations diminished. The fact that he was being criticized by the skeptics of his day for not bringing enough revelations should be a warning to you (and others who voice the same criticisms) that there is something wrong with that way of thinking. Some will always think that the grass on the other side is greener no matter what.


The Book of Mormon is the evidence that you (or anyone else) needs to know that the Church is true, and is led by prophets and Apostles. Those who insist on "looking beyond the mark" will stumble.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote, regarding my denying that I "venerate" the Bible:

Daniel Peterson, on 09 October 2010 - 02:03 PM, said:

A quibble over a word.

If someone accused you of worshiping Joseph Smith, and you denied it, would that be merely "a quibble over a word"?

You wrote:

Quote

Do you, or do you not, regard the Bible -- which contains accounts of numerous purported revelations on subjects of seemingly very small import and features many prophets who claimed to have received only one divine revelation, and not a few who wrote nothing at all -- as the (inerrant?) Word of God?

Yes.

You wrote:

Quote

I understood and understand your argument.  I just don't find it even remotely dispositive.

If you had understood it previously, it is curious that you drew erroneous conclusions from it as to my view (e.g., that I believe there is some threshold number of revelations any one individual must receive to be considered a prophet).

You wrote:

Quote

Your observations, above, can easily be seen as confirming your faith that the leaders of my church aren't prophets, but they scarcely constitute refutations of my faith that the leaders of my church are prophets.  How God calls his prophets (e.g., with or without burning bush), how old they are (whether very young, like Samuel, or very old, like Moses and the father of John the Baptist), whether they are priests (like Ezekiel) or seemingly critical of priests and priesthood (like many of the other Hebrew prophets), whether they received many profound revelations or only one simple revelatory command, whether they innovated or called upon their hearers to return to old commandments and truths (there are Old Testament prophets who perform each of these functions), is of no particular relevance, in my mind, to the question of whether or not they were prophets.  I allow God the freedom to communicate as frequently as he wishes, on any topic that he wishes to address.

So do I. But God also expects me to use my noodle and assess alleged claims to revelation. And the fact remains that I could agree with every one of your assertions in the above paragraph without in any way revising or abandoning my original argument. Hence, I conclude that you still haven't got it.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Bernard Gui, on 09 October 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

Furthermore, the process of succession to the Presidency was established after Brigham Young - the senior Apostle becomes the President of the Church - and it was only natural that older men would thereafter hold that position.... Well, that's because it is a seniority system. The senior Apostle becomes the President.

Thanks for acknowledging this much of my argument.

You wrote:

Quote

The system eliminates schemes and machinations to achieve power, unless you are willing to entertain the notion that the men who become President somehow eliminated their older "competition" on their way up the system. It's an ingenious system of succession. I believe it is inspired revelation of how God wants his Church to be organized in the latter days.

You're still not engaging the argument I presented, in which the seniority system is only one aspect or facet of the argument.

You wrote:

Quote

Who do you think the prophets and apostles of the Didache were?

I'm not sure what you are asking. Do you want to know their names? The Didache was evidently written in the first century, when there were still some apostles and prophets living. I'm not sure what point you wish to make.

[Daniel Peterson]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 03:40 PM, said:

I see the Book of Mormon as an apologetic liability for Mormonism, not an apologetic asset.

Another clear case where we disagree.

Given that as (something of) a starting point, however, it's unsurprising -- and none too interesting -- that you're inclined to take the past century as further evidence of your overall position, whereas I, who believe that the Book of Mormon is a sign of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, am inclined to take the revelations claimed by John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Spencer W. Kimball, Gordon B. Hinckley, et al., as further evidence supporting mine.

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 03:45 PM, said:

If someone accused you of worshiping Joseph Smith, and you denied it, would that be merely "a quibble over a word"?

No, it would be a flat falsehood.

In fact, I believe that you do venerate the Bible.  (Venerate: "to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference.")  I certainly do.  And I don't even believe it to be inerrant.  But, if the word disturbs you, I'm willing to avoid it out of deference to your sensibilities.

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 03:40 PM, said:

If you had understood it previously, it is curious that you drew erroneous conclusions from it as to my view (e.g., that I believe there is some threshold number of revelations any one individual must receive to be considered a prophet).

And you, in turn, apparently fail to grasp my critique.

The Old and New Testaments are chock full of prophets who seem to have had only one or (maybe) two revelatory experiences and/or received no revelation of any new doctrine or innovative concept and/or who did not write down any revelation that they received.  Yet they are, according to the Bible that you do not venerate, genuine prophets.  I fail to see why, even if the leaders of my church have not received revelations over the past century at a pace that you approve and/or of sufficient doctrinal novelty and heft to impress you and/or did not commit such revelations to writing, that should convince me that they weren't prophets in the biblical mold.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

cdowis, on 09 October 2010 - 03:11 PM, said:

I have attempted to demonstrate that you do not understand the role of a prophet, e.g. Joshua.  You have chosen not to respond, so we can conclude that the basis of your "big picture" is based on ignorance and flawed assumptions.  Joshua was certainly a prophet, but he was also, to use your term, a bureaucrat.  There are other examples in the scriptures.

I understand why you continue to ignore my posts because my argument is self-evident.

I have not ignored your posts. I have already responded to a significant misunderstanding that you expressed in your first two posts in this thread.

CFR that Joshua was a prophet. But please remember, I never said that a bureaucrat could not be a prophet.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 October 2010 - 03:45 PM, said:

So do I. But God also expects me to use my noodle and assess alleged claims to revelation. And the fact remains that I could agree with every one of your assertions in the above paragraph without in any way revising or abandoning my original argument. Hence, I conclude that you still haven't got it.

It is remarkable that everyone seems to be missing Rob's point.  I suspect this means that he has not made his point clearly.  Perhaps a succinct clarification would be in order.  Is there any LDS respondent here who has correctly understood you?

At any rate, this isn't really a serious argument, because even if modern prophets were young, innovators, producing daily canonical revelations, and professing frequent visions, Rob still would not believe in them.  

The fact that we can find examples of all of what he finds objectionable in contemporary prophets in reproduced in the prophets of the Bible clearly demonstrates a double standard, a tactic that Rob and evangelicals use on a regular basis.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I am curious to know why you felt it necessary to repeat (in more than one post) that I "venerate" the Bible, if all you meant was that I regard it with respect and admiration, just as you do. I assumed that you were using the word "venerate" to express something like near-worship, hence my taking exception to it. I'll accept your explanation of your intended meaning.

The fact that LDS prophets have issued very few revelations and almost no new scripture since the passing of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young is only part of the larger argument for viewing those leaders as something other than prophets. Until you wrestle with the cumulative nature of the argument as a whole, you haven't effectively answered it.