Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

THis is a bit over the top. I don't agree with Rob, but he generally is respectful. The least we can do is show the same respect to him.

Board Nanny Mode = off.

[fatherofone]

John Taylor's revelation calling Heber J. Grant and George Teasdale to the Twelve, Wilford Woodruff's revelations on sealings and on plural marriage, Lorenzo Snow's revelation on tithing, Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead, Spencer W. Kimball's revelation on priesthood, Gordon B. Hinckley's revelation on smaller temples -- off the top of my head, that's seven more revelations than mainstream Christendom received during the same post-Brigham period.

and many times fewer then Joseph Smith had, so I think you are proving his point?

[semlogo]

zerinus,

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

Given your faulty revelation on infinity, doesn't it give you pause about what you supposedly "know"?

[Deborah]

That is why I say you have some responsibility to point to evidence supporting your claim. Just like in the Bible.

The problem is for those of us who believe we have evidence. You just don't accept it.

[ELF1024]

THis is a bit over the top. I don't agree with Rob, but he generally is respectful. The least we can do is show the same respect to him.

Board Nanny Mode = off.

I will refrain from such in the future...

However, I found his comment

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I will refrain from such in the future...

However, I found his comment

[Gervin]

John Taylor's revelation calling Heber J. Grant and George Teasdale to the Twelve, Wilford Woodruff's revelations on sealings and on plural marriage, Lorenzo Snow's revelation on tithing, Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead, Spencer W. Kimball's revelation on priesthood, Gordon B. Hinckley's revelation on smaller temples -- off the top of my head, that's seven more revelations than mainstream Christendom received during the same post-Brigham period.

The revelation of Christendom begins with God revealing to humanity the person of Jesus of Nazareth. As Dotolo says, "It is not the question of something to learn, but of a Someone to be met, whose advent represents the offering of meaning for every person, an offer formulated through three key-words: word, event, and mystery." Revelation is ongoing in Christendom. Feel free to ask for examples.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF 1024,

I don't reject anything that the OT says about Joshua. When it says God spoke to him, I accept that as fact. I accept as fact everything the Bible says about Joshua. I simply maintain that the OT never actually refers to Joshua as a "prophet"; his position or role seems to have been that of a military and political leader, not a prophet.

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

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You wrote:

The problem is for those of us who believe we have evidence. You just don't accept it.

So far, no one here has offered any evidence for me to consider.

[Magyar]

Keep an eye out for she bears.

Bernard

lol. And sea bears, too, a la Spongebob.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF 1024,

You find it offensive and close to blasphemy that Jesus would call me his friend? If I'm not Jesus' friend, then I must really be badly off. After all, Jesus was a friend of tax-collectors and sinners. I consider myself a friend of Jesus because I seek to do as he commanded and accept what Jesus said as coming from God (John 15:14-15). How is that even close to blasphemous?

I will refrain from such in the future...

However, I found his comment

[ELF1024]

ELF 1024,

I don't reject anything that the OT says about Joshua. When it says God spoke to him, I accept that as fact. I accept as fact everything the Bible says about Joshua. I simply maintain that the OT never actually refers to Joshua as a "prophet"; his position or role seems to have been that of a military and political leader, not a prophet.

I find that argument to be rather weak and to hold far less water than you think it does. Good luck with that.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF 1024,

You may personally find my argument to be weak, but that doesn't justify your patently false accusation that I "rejected" any OT prophets.

I find that argument to be rather weak and to hold far less water than you think it does. Good luck with that.

[ELF1024]

ELF 1024,

You may personally find my argument to be weak, but that doesn't justify your patently false accusation that I "rejected" any OT prophets.

So, if I understand what you are attempting to say is that while you don't believe that Joshua was a Prophet, you still believe what the Bible say about him.

I find that to be quite dishonest. I say that you cannot reject Joshua as a Prophet, and still believe what the Bible has to say about him. Several people have shown you that Joshua was a Prophet. You have chosen to reject the evidence. The one simply does not allow for the other.

You can choose not to accept my position, but that doesn't make my opinion that you reject the OT Prophet Joshua any less valid.

[zerinus]

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. . . .

I think the burden is on you to explain to the rest of us how you define the word "prophet" so that it includes Moses but excludes Joshua.

[semlogo]

Given your faulty revelation on infinity, doesn't it give you pause about what you supposedly "know"?

Rob, I think this is an important point that you've overlooked. You claim to understand Jesus, but we have an example here in this forum where you received a personal revelation that is empirically wrong, and falsified mathematically. How can you explain this?

[zerinus]

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.

Can you provide us with some examples of what you call "evidence"?

[Ahab]

Can you provide us with some examples of what you call "evidence"?

He said "Just like in the Bible", and by that I think he was referring to the kind of evidence we have in the Bible.

You know, where men write stuff which they and other people consider to be "scripture", even though not all people agree that it is scripture.

Not hard to come up with that kind of evidence, really, even if Rob were to say the evidence isn't really scripture.

[zerinus]

Deborah,

You wrote:

So far, no one here has offered any evidence for me to consider.

If you had lived in the days of Jeremiah, let's say, what evidence would have had to convince you that he was a prophet? What evidence do you think the people of Nineveh had that convinced them that Jonah had been a prophet, so much so that they believed in him and repented of their sins?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Rob said...

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

[zerinus]

He said "Just like in the Bible", and by that I think he was referring to the kind of evidence we have in the Bible.

You know, where men write stuff which they and other people consider to be "scripture", even though not all people agree that it is scripture.

Not hard to come up with that kind of evidence, really, even if Rob were to say the evidence isn't really scripture.

Thank you Ahab; but I would rather have the answer direct from him. I will have a better idea of how to answer him then.

[zerinus]

ELF 1024,

You may personally find my argument to be weak, but that doesn't justify your patently false accusation that I "rejected" any OT prophets.

I don't think that you have "rejected OT prophets;" but your insistence that Joshua was not a prophet belies your evident knowledge of the Old Testament.

[Ahab]

I don't think that you have "rejected OT prophets;" but your insistence that Joshua was not a prophet belies your evident knowledge of the Old Testament.

Are you saying you don't see his insistence that Joshua was not a prophet as a rejection of Joshua as an OT prophet?

How much more clear does he need to be before you see that is what he is doing?

[Vance]

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

You already know the answer to the questions you ask, or at least you should know the answers. I respond with questions in hopes you will actually think about your own questions. Your snippy response indicates to me that you DO know the answers to your own questions but you just don't want to admit them publicly because they undercut your own position.

Are you somehow hoping that my (hoped for on your part) ignorance can be exploited to further your agenda?

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

This dispute is getting tiresome. I was told that Joshua was a prophet, and I issued a CFR. That means the burden of proof was on those who sought to meet that CFR. Most of those who responded did so by expressing incredulity that I would even ask the question. I was denounced as blind to the truth, accused of denying OT prophets, and generally lambasted for my question -- while very little if any evidence was offered in response to the CFR.

The fact is that the Bible never refers to Joshua as a prophet. It does, however, refer to Moses as a prophet (Deut. 18:15, 18; 34:10; Acts 3:22; 7:37). Moses received revelations over a lengthy period of time, and those revelations were a major aspect of his ministry as God's servant. We have a few references to the Lord speaking to Joshua, but this does not seem to have been a major aspect of his ministry as it was with Moses. Many of Moses' revelations became Scripture and are included in the canon of Scripture. Again, we have very few examples of communications from God to Joshua that are included in the Bible. If you define a prophet as anyone who hears a message of any kind from God, then Joshua was by that definition a prophet. However, by that definition (for example), Job was also a prophet, though he is never called one and does not seem to have functioned as a prophet in any public capacity. In fact, Job's three friends would have to be classified as prophets, because the Lord spoke to them as well -- though he was not happy with them! So I employ a narrower definition of prophet than anyone to whom God speaks. As I understand the term's usage in the Bible, a prophet is someone whom God has called to function in a public ministry as God's revelatory spokesperson, i.e., someone who speaks publicly on behalf of God to convey revelations from God to other people. Such a person publicly speaks in a mode of saying God's words with introductory expressions such as "hear the word of the Lord" or "thus says the Lord" or "the oracle that God gave" or the like. Joshua is something of a borderline case at best, according to this definition.

But again -- and why no one seems to be hearing this I don't know -- it doesn't bother me if you classify Joshua as a prophet. At least he has clear evidence to support such a claim with regard to God speaking to him, Joshua serving as the agent through whom God performed miracles, and so forth. Fact is, I could make, and already have made, a stronger case for classifying Joshua as a prophet (loosely defined) than any of the Mormons here. The reason this is so is that I actually have criteria that are biblically based and subject to reasoned examination and application.

I think the burden is on you to explain to the rest of us how you define the word "prophet" so that it includes Moses but excludes Joshua.