Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

[TAO]

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

1) Patriarchal Blessings

2) Words of a Prophet

3) Promptings of the Spirit

[cdowis]

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.

Paul tells us that the church would always have prophets and apostles in the organization of the church.

President Monson was ordained an apostle by one having priesthood authority that goes back to Peter, James and John. It is the priesthood and the keys of the priesthood to administer and govern the church that makes him a prophet, not whether he is a fortune teller.

I say fortune teller, because you are looking for a flood of prophecy and canonized scripture. You question, for example, the prophetic calling of Joshua, because he was not another Moses. We learn from Joshua and the prophets and apostles in the early church that the canonized scriptures and predictions of coming events were a small part of the calling of those apostles and prophets. Their primary calling was administration of the church and ordinances.

There is no burden for you or for us. You either accept the priesthood authority, and those who administer it, or you choose to reject that claim to authority. We simply do not have the same understanding of the calling of a prophet that you have. It's all about administering the priesthood, not the fortune teller who declares future events.

Therefore, whenever a General Authority is called, when a stake president and temple president is called, when a missionary is assigned to a specific mission, all of these events are examples of revelation. "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you" as Christ declared. These men have not graduated from Divinity school and persued a career in the ministry. They are called by revelation, and ordained by those who bear the priesthood.

And we are very aware and understand that you disagree with us. There is nothing to prove.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

I have met a number of Protestant clergymen. Most of them seemed to be dedicated, sincere, likable fellows,

but I do not believe they were called by God. Prove that they were.

Can you prove that you have been called by

God to do what you are doing?

Bernard

[zerinus]

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.

Good! Then you can respond to me when I don't question your intentions!

[zerinus]

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.

We don't have such an obligation actually. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" (Matthew 16:4).

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.

They said the same thing about Jesus you know:

Mark 6

:

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

[Rob Bowman]

TAO,

You wrote:

http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

Read.

That chapter in Gospel Principles offers no evidence that Monson is a prophet. However, I have already read it, and I replied in an online article entitled Prophets Old and New.

Your turn to do some reading!

[Rob Bowman]

TAO,

I had asked Vance, "Care to give an example of a scripture that is not canonized, and of something canonized that is not scripture?" You replied:

1) Patriarchal Blessings

2) Words of a Prophet

3) Promptings of the Spirit

I take it those are examples of scriptures that are not canonized. I understand that LDS doctrine recognizes the second category as "scripture" in some sense, but I don't think that is the case with the first and third categories. If the third category counts as "scripture," then in that sense evangelicals believe in continuing and new scriptures, because we believe in the prompting of the Spirit.

So, can you give me a specific example of words of a prophet that are scripture but not canonized? How about something from the current prophet? And do you have any examples of canonized material that is not scripture?

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

Paul tells us that the church would always have prophets and apostles in the organization of the church.

If that were the case, which it isn't, Paul would have been mistaken, because, by your own church's admission, there were no prophets or apostles for some seventeen centuries.

You wrote:

President Monson was ordained an apostle by one having priesthood authority that goes back to Peter, James and John.

But what if I have good reason to disbelieve the claim that Peter, James, and John bestowed priesthood authority on the founders of the LDS Church?

You wrote:

It is the priesthood and the keys of the priesthood to administer and govern the church that makes him a prophet, not whether he is a fortune teller.

I didn't ask what makes him a prophet. I asked what evidence you have that he is a prophet.

You wrote:

I say fortune teller, because you are looking for a flood of prophecy and canonized scripture. You question, for example, the prophetic calling of Joshua, because he was not another Moses.

No, I question the claim that Joshua had a prophetic calling because I see no evidence in the Bible that Joshua viewed himself as a prophet or that anyone else viewed him that way.

You wrote:

We learn from Joshua and the prophets and apostles in the early church that the canonized scriptures and predictions of coming events were a small part of the calling of those apostles and prophets. Their primary calling was administration of the church and ordinances.

Paul explicitly denies that ordinances were a significant part of his "primary calling" (1 Cor. 1:13-17).

You wrote:

There is no burden for you or for us. You either accept the priesthood authority, and those who administer it, or you choose to reject that claim to authority.

Perhaps you simply accept it without question, but I can't. I am aware of too many religions that claim to have an exclusive pipeline to God. They can't all be right, so I have to assess or evaluate their claims based on evidence.

You wrote:

We simply do not have the same understanding of the calling of a prophet that you have. It's all about administering the priesthood, not the fortune teller who declares future events.

You can knock down that straw man and beat that dead horse from now until kingdom come and it won't make it a fair representation of my view.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

I have met a number of Protestant clergymen. Most of them seemed to be dedicated, sincere, likable fellows, but I do not believe they were called by God. Prove that they were.

Can you prove that you have been called by God to do what you are doing?

Protestant clergymen don't claim to be prophets or apostles. They don't claim that if you aren't baptized in their sect then you haven't been validly baptized. They don't claim that they are the appointed leaders of the church worldwide. They don't make any claims about themselves; they simply seek to minister to people with the love of Christ and the truth of God's word in the Bible as best they know and can.

I also make no special claims for myself. I don't present myself as someone indispensable to the people of God. I don't ask anyone to believe anything about me. Since I make no special claims about myself, I have nothing to prove about myself.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I know Jesus; Jesus graciously and mercifully calls me his friend; and with all due respect, your prophets are no Jesus.

They said the same thing about Jesus you know:

Mark 6

:

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

[Kenngo1969]

What where you expecting? The Virgin Mother appearing in a tortilla? ...

[Kenngo1969]

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

I have no doubt that the Song of Solomon is inspired; the question is, by whom?

[ELF1024]

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.

Actually, I don't have to do much to make your argument "Sound silly". Because your argument is silly. You've rejected OT prophets. Why should we think for a second that anything we say will get anything other than a "No it doesn't" response.

You need to define what it is your looking for.

[ELF1024]

zerinus,

I know Jesus; Jesus graciously and mercifully calls me his friend; and with all due respect, your prophets are no Jesus.

With all due lack of respect, Mr. Bowman, you couldn't tell the difference between Elvis and Christ. You may be an extremely learned man, but your purposeful lack of understanding is appalling.

Go back to your great and spacious building, point and mock those at the tree, laugh at those who believe; and when your building falls, don't expect anyone to believe you when you feign ignorance.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

I know Jesus; Jesus graciously and mercifully calls me his friend; and with all due respect, your prophets are no Jesus.

If you knew Jesus, you would recognize His prophets also. The fact that you don't is indication that your claim to know Jesus is make-belief and false pretense, not genuine.

[zerinus]

Charles,

You wrote:

If that were the case, which it isn't, Paul would have been mistaken, because, by your own church's admission, there were no prophets or apostles for some seventeen centuries.

I am sure what he was referring to was God

[zerinus]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Protestant clergymen don't claim to be prophets or apostles. They don't claim that if you aren't baptized in their sect then you haven't been validly baptized. They don't claim that they are the appointed leaders of the church worldwide. They don't make any claims about themselves; they simply seek to minister to people with the love of Christ and the truth of God's word in the Bible as best they know and can.

They fulfill the characteristics of being false prophets nevertheless.

I also make no special claims for myself. I don't present myself as someone indispensable to the people of God. I don't ask anyone to believe anything about me. Since I make no special claims about myself, I have nothing to prove about myself.

Well, and so do you, whether you realize it or not. Don't you claim to teach the correct gospel? Don't you claim that we (and others) teach a false one? Don't you teach that those who do not accept your version of the gospel, or the gospel as you understand it, are damned, unless they convert to your way of thinking? That is the role of a prophet. You are acting the role of a prophet

[Rob Bowman]

ELF 1024,

I have absolutely not rejected any OT prophets. You're making that up.

Actually, I don't have to do much to make your argument "Sound silly". Because your argument is silly. You've rejected OT prophets. Why should we think for a second that anything we say will get anything other than a "No it doesn't" response.

You need to define what it is your looking for.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF 1024,

How ridiculous. I wouldn't say such outlandish things about you, despite our theological differences, because I make every effort (however imperfectly I succeed) to say the truth about your religion. You are not making a similar effort with regard to my beliefs.

Please consult Proverbs 18:13 and Matthew 7:12 and reconsider your attitude.

With all due lack of respect, Mr. Bowman, you couldn't tell the difference between Elvis and Christ. You may be an extremely learned man, but your purposeful lack of understanding is appalling.

Go back to your great and spacious building, point and mock those at the tree, laugh at those who believe; and when your building falls, don't expect anyone to believe you when you feign ignorance.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

That's what I like about you, Z. I actually prefer Mormonism "straight up," not the wishy-washy Mormonism of those apologists who claim that "we're all Christians here, it's just we know a little more about Jesus than you do."

If you knew Jesus, you would recognize His prophets also. The fact that you don't is indication that your claim to know Jesus is make-belief and false pretense, not genuine.

[cdowis]

If that were the case, which it isn't, Paul would have been mistaken, because, by your own church's admission, there were no prophets or apostles for some seventeen centuries.

Paul made himself very clear about that "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". Paul specifically spoke of the imminent apostacy which was happening even in his own day. He then gave us a marker, a token to recognize the authentic church when it would be restored.

So, instead of removing pages out of the Bible, you should read what he actually said.

But what if I have good reason to disbelieve the claim that Peter, James, and John bestowed priesthood authority on the founders of the LDS Church?

Of course you are free to make that decision. That is something between you and the Lord. And each of us, you and I, will be held responsible for that decision.

According to my religion, you will go to heaven regardless of that choice. But I suspect that your religion teaches that I will go to the bad place. So that is one difference in our religions.

I didn't ask what makes him a prophet. I asked what evidence you have that he is a prophet.

In my twenty years of doing this I have learned one thing. Evidence is anything that the other person chooses to accept. If we cannot even agree on whether Joshua was a prophet, we have no common ground for me to prove anything.

No, I question the claim that Joshua had a prophetic calling because I see no evidence in the Bible that Joshua viewed himself as a prophet or that anyone else viewed him that way.

See my comment on evidence.

I have read Joshua chapter one, where the Lord gave specific revelations to him on what needed to be done, that he was the successor to Moses, and that the people themselves accepted him as a prophet(verse 16). To me, that makes him a prophet, but I can see that we just do not have a common ground. To me, this whole thread is based on your lack of understanding on what constitutes a prophet.

Paul explicitly denies that ordinances were a significant part of his "primary calling" (1 Cor. 1:13-17).

His meaning is very clear here, and you would surely agree there is no point in discussing your interpretation with mine. To me, you are twisting the meaning from what he intended.

Anyway, all the best.

[Deborah]

Protestant clergymen don't claim to be prophets or apostles. They don't claim that if you aren't baptized in their sect then you haven't been validly baptized.

We do claim that we have Prophets and Apostles. We do claim to have baptism by proper Priesthood authority. Just like in the Bible.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

I have read Joshua 1 also. In verse 16, which you cited in particular, the Israelites affirm Joshua's leadership: they will do what he says and go where he directs. The same point is made emphatically in verses 17-19. Joshua was Moses' successor in the capacity of being their national leader and military general. Everyone understands this. But this doesn't make Joshua a prophet.

Now, if you wish to interpret the term prophet broadly enough to include Joshua, that doesn't bother me one bit. It won't in any way affect my argument for questioning whether men like Monson are prophets of God. Monson wasn't appointed by someone whose prophetic credentials are clear and unmistakable, as was Joshua. (If Moses wasn't a prophet, no one was!) Monson so far has done nothing to show that God speaks to him any more than he speaks to me or anyone else. In fact, I'm not even aware of Monson so much as claiming that God had revealed anything specifically to him to be passed on to the church. Nor has Monson been involved in anything miraculous, as was Joshua (e.g., the crossing of the Jordan River in Joshua 3). If I wanted to make a case for Joshua as a prophet, I would at least have something on which to base such a conclusion. I have nothing of the sort for Monson except the LDS Church's claim that anyone who rises to his office is ipso facto a prophet.

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

I'm quite well aware that you make that claim. That is why I say you have some responsibility to point to evidence supporting your claim. Just like in the Bible.

We do claim that we have Prophets and Apostles. We do claim to have baptism by proper Priesthood authority. Just like in the Bible.

[ELF1024]

ELF 1024,

I have absolutely not rejected any OT prophets. You're making that up.

Seriously? From this thread...

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

You request a CFR that Joshua was a prophet... and yet you claim not to have rejected any OT prophets?? Seriously?