Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

[Anakin7]

Rob do you keep in touch with your brothers/sisters/friends at CRI like Hank Hanegraff ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[zerinus]

zerinus,

I am not permitted to preach here, and in turn, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to preach at me. Not that you'll get anywhere with your approach.

I guess that makes a change from "I don't have time". A change is as good as a rest they say!

[cdowis]

Rob do you keep in touch with your brothers/sisters/friends at CRI like Hank Hanegraff ?

I think I can speak for Rob to say that he and Hankie are not friends.

[cdowis]

Out of curiosity I went and looked at the financial statements for the years in since I last went through them. The results were just the same. Some church employees are highly compensated, and donations for direct charity to Fast Offerings and the Humanitarian Fund are being stockpiled and not distributed. Maybe we ran out of needy people in the world.

Phaedrus

Thanks for giving us an example of why the church should not publish its financial records. It should not give the hate mongers grist for their mill.

In this case, this financial record is limited to a small part of the church, specifically in the one country Great Britain which requires the disclosure of this information.

It does not represent the church in general and one cannot draw any conclusions about church finances.

[MatthewG]

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

Peace,

Ceeboo

Do you ever add anything of substance are you just here to make lame negative comments?

[MatthewG]

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.

That's very inaccurate. There are hundreds if not thousands of books not complied into the incomplete book referred to as the "bible". Who is to say there wasn't always a "prophet" or "PINO" as you disrespectfully refer to them as, during the incomplete times in the bible?

[MatthewG]

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.

Oh please if a member of the Church doesn't know who the next president of the Church is going to be after Monson then they're pretty uneducated members. This isn't the Catholic church, there isn't lobbying, voting, black smoke etc. God set his system up, if he lives long enough Packer will be the next president. No need to speculate about anything. Any one of the 15 men who lead the church could be prophet at any time, not because it's a random pull a name out the hat, but because God could pull the plug on any of them at any time. I really doubt the man 7th or 8th or even 15th in line is really "worrying about when he'll be prophet".

[Vance]

Do you ever add anything of substance are you just here to make lame negative comments?

I think ceeboo is here to find humor in whatever (or whomever) he can.

[Vance]

I think I can speak for Rob to say that he and Hankie are not friends.

How could two "true" and devout Christians not be friends?

[phaedrus ut]

Thanks for giving us an example of why the church should not publish its financial records. It should not give the hate mongers grist for their mill.

In this case, this financial record is limited to a small part of the church, specifically in the one country Great Britain which requires the disclosure of this information.

A wise man once said that "sunlight is the best disinfectant". I'm a big believer in openness and transparency. If I was a Latter Day Saint in Great Brittan in 2004 and donated money to the Humanitarian Fund of the church to aide the tsunami victims only to see years later that those funds were still undistributed I'd be disappointed. When I wanted the aide to happen immediately for my future donations I could be make them to charities providing that direct support.

It does not represent the church in general and one cannot draw any conclusions about church finances.

I think it's wishful thinking and speculation to suggest that this is unique. Which is more likely that the operations of the church in Great Brittan are completely unrepresentative of the church's normal operations or that the church operates in a similar fashion all around the world?

Phaedrus

[Rob Bowman]

Anakin7,

I do not maintain any contact with Hanegraaff or anyone else at CRI. My last contact with Hanegraaff was several years ago (about five years ago, I think), and that was a one-way communication from me to him that was ignored.

Why do you ask? Are you familiar with my past history with CRI?

Rob do you keep in touch with your brothers/sisters/friends at CRI like Hank Hanegraff ?.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you ever add anything of substance are you just here to make lame negative comments?

Don't worry about Ceeboo, he is harmless. He is a good guy.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

If you already knew that in my vocabulary "scripture" and "canon" are inclusive of the same materials, which you did, then you knew that my statement was accurate in substance. This is so, even if you want to quibble about the meaning of canonicity in relation to scripture.

Care to give an example of a scripture that is not canonized, and of something canonized that is not scripture?

[Rob Bowman]

MatthewG,

Okay, so God set up a system by which human beings decide who is the next Prophet by pure seniority. That fits nicely with my argument, doesn't it?

If you're right, then Monson knew he would be the Prophet if he outlived his predecessor. But my question was for how long Monson knew this. He didn't know it when he was a child, like Samuel whom the Lord called to be a prophet when he was just a boy. In fact, everything about the process by which Monson became a prophet is organizational and institutional, and there is nothing distinctly revelatory about it.

Oh please if a member of the Church doesn't know who the next president of the Church is going to be after Monson then they're pretty uneducated members. This isn't the Catholic church, there isn't lobbying, voting, black smoke etc. God set his system up, if he lives long enough Packer will be the next president. No need to speculate about anything. Any one of the 15 men who lead the church could be prophet at any time, not because it's a random pull a name out the hat, but because God could pull the plug on any of them at any time. I really doubt the man 7th or 8th or even 15th in line is really "worrying about when he'll be prophet".

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You keep throwing this at me about me saying "I don't have time," even when I do answer you. Since you like change, I'll offer you this: If you keep posting remarks like this, I won't have time to respond--to you.

I guess that makes a change from "I don't have time". A change is as good as a rest they say!

[ELF1024]

MatthewG,

Okay, so God set up a system by which human beings decide who is the next Prophet by pure seniority. That fits nicely with my argument, doesn't it?

If you're right, then Monson knew he would be the Prophet if he outlived his predecessor. But my question was for how long Monson knew this. He didn't know it when he was a child, like Samuel whom the Lord called to be a prophet when he was just a boy. In fact, everything about the process by which Monson became a prophet is organizational and institutional, and there is nothing distinctly revelatory about it.

What where you expecting? The Virgin Mother appearing in a tortilla? Monson's name appearing in the sky? Moroni's trump sounding from the Temple as he walked by? A burning bush?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

MatthewG,

Okay, so God set up a system by which human beings decide who is the next Prophet by pure seniority. That fits nicely with my argument, doesn't it?

If you're right, then Monson knew he would be the Prophet if he outlived his predecessor. But my question was for how long Monson knew this. He didn't know it when he was a child, like Samuel whom the Lord called to be a prophet when he was just a boy. In fact, everything about the process by which Monson became a prophet is organizational and institutional, and there is nothing distinctly revelatory about it.

That is quite a leap you made Rob. There were several callings that he had before hand. And there was never a garuntee that he was going to be the next prophet. Once he was called to the office of an apostle (which I have no idea how you would claim that was not by revelation other than by pure assertion) then you have some what of a case that you presented is what happens. Even then it is still not a garuntee. I only take issue with the bolded portion.

[Vance]

Vance,

If you already knew that in my vocabulary "scripture" and "canon" are inclusive of the same materials, . . .

Since we are talking about things LDS, LDS definitions apply, NOT yours.

. . . which you did, . . .

Not so. Why would I assume or even know that your definitions of these words are different than ours?

Why would you assume that I would be using your definitions even if I knew there was a difference?

. . . then you knew that my statement was accurate in substance.

Your statement was inaccurate, in substance or otherwise.

Care to give an example of a scripture that is not canonized, and of something canonized that is not scripture?

Are you saying that the scriptures that the Bible mentions but that are not found in the Bible (canonized) are not scripture?

Are you saying that every verse in the Bible is scripture (given by inspiration of God)?

[Vance]

Okay, so God set up a system by which human beings decide who is the next Prophet by pure seniority. That fits nicely with my argument, doesn't it?

??????

Okay, so God set up a system by which He decides who is the next Prophet based on longevity, which He alone has control over, and you still are trying to claim that "human beings decide who is the next Prophet"?

The surreal spinning I see, is the wheels that have spun off the bus of your argument.

[zerinus]

MatthewG,

Okay, so God set up a system by which human beings decide who is the next Prophet by pure seniority. That fits nicely with my argument, doesn't it?

Not quite. The call begins from the moment he is called to be an Apostle.

If you're right, then Monson knew he would be the Prophet if he outlived his predecessor.

In a sense yes. Not entirely accurate, but nearly so.

But my question was for how long Monson knew this.

From the moment he was called to be an Apostle.

He didn't know it when he was a child, like Samuel whom the Lord called to be a prophet when he was just a boy.

How many prophets do you know of in the Bible who knew as a boy that they would be prophets? I am not even sure that Samuel know as a boy that he would be the chief prophet/leader if Israel one day from the day God spoke to him as a boy.

In fact, everything about the process by which Monson became a prophet is organizational and institutional, and there is nothing distinctly revelatory about it.

Not so. As I said, the process began from the moment he was called

[zerinus]

zerinus,

You keep throwing this at me about me saying "I don't have time," even when I do answer you. Since you like change, I'll offer you this: If you keep posting remarks like this, I won't have time to respond--to you.

I am sure that is what you would like to do. My answer to it is the same that I had given before, which I think you have forgotten: You can ignore me all you want, but I won't ignore you. I will continue to reply to your posts, and expose the flaws in your arguments, even if you never reply to any of my posts. Sorry Rob, you won't be able to get rid of me that way.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

Your response, beyond trying to make my argument sound silly, presupposes that the burden of proof is all on me to show that Monson was not a prophet. I say that you (Mormons) must shoulder the burden of proof to provide some evidence that Monson is a prophet. Everything about the man that I have heard leads to the conclusion that he is an extremely nice and capable fellow but that there is no reason to think of him as a prophet.

What where you expecting? The Virgin Mother appearing in a tortilla? Monson's name appearing in the sky? Moroni's trump sounding from the Temple as he walked by? A burning bush?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I asked you for examples of uncanonized scripture and nonscriptural canonical material. You replied:

Are you saying that the scriptures that the Bible mentions but that are not found in the Bible (canonized) are not scripture? Are you saying that every verse in the Bible is scripture (given by inspiration of God)?

Please don't answer my question with questions. If you have an answer, please give it.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I have no illusions about getting rid of you. Actually, it's kind of fun to have you around, as when you run interference with some of the LDS apologists here whose readings of LDS scripture are not exactly in keeping with traditional LDS beliefs. But I don't care to respond to you when you constantly question my intentions.

I am sure that is what you would like to do. My answer to it is the same that I had given before, which I think you have forgotten: You can ignore me all you want, but I won't ignore you. I will continue to reply to your posts, and expose the flaws in your arguments, even if you never reply to any of my posts. Sorry Rob, you won't be able to get rid of me that way.

[TAO]

ELF1024,

Your response, beyond trying to make my argument sound silly, presupposes that the burden of proof is all on me to show that Monson was not a prophet. I say that you (Mormons) must shoulder the burden of proof to provide some evidence that Monson is a prophet. Everything about the man that I have heard leads to the conclusion that he is an extremely nice and capable fellow but that there is no reason to think of him as a prophet.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=0cba7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Read.