Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

[ELF1024]

East

[Deborah]

cdowis said:

The Catholics trace their priesthood lineage back to Peter.

which is why Mormons say it's either the Catholics or the Mormons; we're the only ones who can trace priesthood authority.

What about the Pope, is he chopped liver?

What about him. I didn't say anything at all about him. Is he claiming to be a prophet?

[ChristKnight]

cdowis said:

which is why Mormons say it's either the Catholics or the Mormons; we're the only ones who can trace priesthood authority.

Or the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox

[Deborah]

Or the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox

which makes the whole argument of on-going authority interesting since more than one group is claiming such. Again we go back to the argument that there is One church, One priesthood and that God is a God of order.

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You wrote:

Here is the evidence for modern, living prophets in the LDS Church.

I appreciate your making the effort to provide evidence. Your numbered points appear below followed by my response.

1. The fact that we have Prophets and Apostles called by God as they were called in the NT, and no one else claims such.

Actually, several other religions claim to have apostles and prophets. Furthermore, your current apostles and prophets do not seem to have been called "as they were called in the NT." That is, in the NT Jesus Christ handpicked his apostles and prophets, and each apostle had to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus. That isn't the case with your LDS apostles. In fact, I've never heard of any apostle during the past hundred years or so even claiming to have had a visible encounter with the risen Jesus.

2. The fact that we have a record of the restoration of the Priesthood and can trace the line of authority from that.

The evidence shows that the "record" was manufactured years after the alleged event and inserted into LDS scripture in a most highhanded and implausible manner. See my article here for the details.

3. The fact that many inspiring and prophetic pronouncements have come from our latter-day prophets; those who have ears to hear know what these are and those who don't will continue to deny what is right in front of them.

First things first. Put a few of these in front of me from the past 90 years, and then we can talk about what is right in front of me.

4. The fact that the Holy Ghost has testified that these things are true. When Pres. Monson was sustained as prophet I knew without a doubt that he was indeed now the prophet.

This is evidence only to you and doesn't help those of us who haven't received this evidence. Hypothetically, could it ever happen that someone might be sustained as prophet and the Holy Ghost testify to you that a terrible mistake had been made?

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You wrote:

which is why Mormons say it's either the Catholics or the Mormons; we're the only ones who can trace priesthood authority.

The article I cited for you previously shows that this idea of a "priesthood authority" that must be traceable via a chain of men laying hands on men laying hands on men, etc., is not a biblical concept -- and that the priesthoods the LDS Church claims to have are distortions of the biblical teaching.

[Deborah]

The article I cited for you previously shows that this idea of a "priesthood authority" that must be traceable via a chain of men laying hands on men laying hands on men, etc., is not a biblical concept -- and that the priesthoods the LDS Church claims to have are distortions of the biblical teaching.

Except we claim that we received the Priesthood via the direct laying on of hands by those resurrected beings who had authority to do so. You may choose not to believe it but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Deborah]

This is evidence only to you and doesn't help those of us who haven't received this evidence. Hypothetically, could it ever happen that someone might be sustained as prophet and the Holy Ghost testify to you that a terrible mistake had been made?

Me and hundreds of thousands of others who received the same testimony. I do not believe one would get a negative answer; it is possible they did not get an answer or that they got an answer but didn't understand it.

[Vance]

That isn't the case with your LDS apostles.

CFR

In fact, I've never heard of any apostle during the past hundred years or so even claiming to have had a visible encounter with the risen Jesus.

Are you omniscient or something?

The evidence shows that the "record" was manufactured years after the alleged event and inserted into LDS scripture in a most highhanded and implausible manner.

I have read your article and find it sophomoric. Even an amateur like myself can see the NUMEROUS FATAL FLAWS in it.

For example.

The texts describing these supposed momentous events were not part of the 1833 Book of Commandments, the earliest version of the LDS scripture containing Joseph Smith

[Vance]

The article I cited for you previously shows that this idea of a "priesthood authority" that must be traceable via a chain of men laying hands on men laying hands on men, etc., is not a biblical concept -- and that the priesthoods the LDS Church claims to have are distortions of the biblical teaching.

???????

Not a Biblical concept?????

Really?

One wonders exactly how familiar you are with the Bible.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Priesthood/Restoration

The apostles transferred authority by the laying on of hands

The apostles themselves called others to assist them and gave them authority by laying on of hands. These men did not select themselves, and they did not begin to act as assistants to the Apostles until they were given authority:

1 AND in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. 2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5

[TAO]

Not much of a rebuttal. "There's an answer for this somewhere."

Okey dokey, I'll go through it all... long post.

-----

By the way, the Bible says nothing about any of these prophets receiving their authority to prophesy from another man, let alone in a ritual ordination ceremony.

Numbers 27:22 And Moses did as the Lord commanded him: and he took Joshua, and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation: 23 And he ^alaid his ^bhands upon him, and gave him a ^ccharge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses.

Deutoronomy 34:7

[TAO]

The problem is that Amos 3:7 does not say that God always works through prophets; it says nothing about revelation from God coming on a continuous basis in all periods of history. What Amos 3:7 is saying is that God will not bring about any sort of major change in his dealings with his people without first warning them through his prophets. In context, God is warning the northern kingdom of Israel (the tribes that had broken away from the rule of David

[TAO]

while Brigham Young taught that Adam was our Father and God, and (apparently) that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ in the flesh (Journal of Discourses 1:50-51).

Na, this is a misread of what he taught. Actually, was discussing it with erichards on another thread. Adam is the name of a position, not only on this world, but also on others, if you get my drift. Remember God the Father has a body... and if he's not the Adam for this earth.... hmmm... where could that go ;-).

Also stop referncing JoD, it's more opinion rather than Doctrine, don'tcha know?

The occasion of President Woodruff

[Vance]

I know Jesus; Jesus graciously and mercifully calls me his friend; . . .

Just curious if you really meet Jesus' requirement to be called His friend.

John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Big "IF" there.

[cdowis]

Rob,

I find it fascinating that you are now instructing us on what the BOM teaches.

As a matter of fact, the Book of Mormon also says nothing about prophets needing such an ordination

Please open up your unused copy of the Book of Mormon and read Mosiah 23 [16] And now, Alma was their high priest, he being the founder of their church. [17] And it came to pass that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God. Therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers; and none were consecrated except they were just men.

The protocol is clear == God speaks to the prophet who then ordains the church leaders, priests and teachers. Remember that the role of the prophet is to hold the keys of the priesthood and to govern the church. While we do not have the record of Alma receiving the priesthood, the procedure is clear how that priesthood is passed on to others.

[zerinus]

Just curious if you really meet Jesus' requirement to be called His friend.

John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Big "IF" there.

Nice one!

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You wrote:

Except we claim that we received the Priesthood via the direct laying on of hands by those resurrected beings who had authority to do so. You may choose not to believe it but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You may choose to believe it but that doesn't mean it did happen.

Now where does that leave us?

The evidence would be a good place to start. I showed in my article that the story of those resurrected beings laying hands on Joseph and Oliver was made up years later and literally spliced into the middle of a sentence in an older revelation to make it look like it was part of that older revelation when it wasn't. Can you refute my argument, or are you going to trump it with your personal testimony?

[Rob Bowman]

Nathair,

Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate it.

A bigger achievement is that the vast majority of those are substantial contributions to the discussion. For what it's worth, (probably very little coming from someone like me) though I often disagree with you, I value your perspective and participation here. As far as I can tell, you seem to be making an honest effort toward understanding, respectful dialogue and fair and reasonable criticism even when some of our own don't live up to ourselves.

Thank you,

Yours under the appreciative oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I wrote:

"Furthermore, your current apostles and prophets do not seem to have been called "as they were called in the NT." That is, in the NT Jesus Christ handpicked his apostles and prophets, and each apostle had to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus. That isn't the case with your LDS apostles. In fact, I've never heard of any apostle during the past hundred years or so even claiming to have had a visible encounter with the risen Jesus."

You replied:

CFR

Sorry, CFR right back at you. Please provide:

1. A reference showing that to be qualified as an apostle in the LDS Church, one must have had a personal, visible encounter with the risen Jesus.

2. A reference showing that even one of the LDS apostles living today has even claimed to have had a personal, visible encounter with the risen Jesus.

I maintain that (1) there is no such requirement or qualification to be an apostle in the LDS Church, and (2) I am not aware of any LDS apostle alive today who claims to have had such an encounter.

As for me providing a reference to support my statements, I would start by referring you to the article on "Apostle" by S. Kent Brown in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1:59-61). Brown doesn't mention any requirement or expectation that LDS apostles will have had a visible encounter with the risen Jesus. Again, I am not aware of any LDS source that specifies this as an expectation, prerequisite, or qualification to be an apostle in the LDS religion. The chapter on "Priesthood Organization" in Gospel Principles also does not mention any such qualification. So there are two references for you.

The burden of proof is not on me here. It's on you to show that the LDS apostles are required to have had such experiences and that in fact they do at least claim to have had them.

We can deal with your other criticisms one at a time, once this issue is settled (if it is).

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Just curious if you really meet Jesus' requirement to be called His friend.

John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Big "IF" there.

Not perfectly, but I am not aware of any command of Jesus Christ that I am ignoring, rejecting, or not seeking to obey.

How about you?

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

I find it fascinating that you are now instructing us on what the BOM teaches.

Someone's gotta do it.

You wrote:

Please open up your unused copy of the Book of Mormon and read Mosiah 23 [16] And now, Alma was their high priest, he being the founder of their church. [17] And it came to pass that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God. Therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers; and none were consecrated except they were just men.

The protocol is clear == God speaks to the prophet who then ordains the church leaders, priests and teachers. Remember that the role of the prophet is to hold the keys of the priesthood and to govern the church. While we do not have the record of Alma receiving the priesthood, the procedure is clear how that priesthood is passed on to others.

From the passage you quoted, it would appear that the protocol is that no one can be a priest or teacher unless he is consecrated by Alma. From this, why don't you conclude that no one today can be a priest or teacher unless he is consecrated by Alma?

Furthermore, the text says nothing about needing consecration by Alma to be a prophet. That is the issue I raised.

[Rob Bowman]

TAO,

I appreciate your detailed posts. I want to do them justice, so I won't respond immediately off the cuff, but will take some time to put together a good reply.

[Vance]

Vance,

I wrote:

"Furthermore, your current apostles and prophets do not seem to have been called "as they were called in the NT." That is, in the NT Jesus Christ handpicked his apostles and prophets, and each apostle had to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus. That isn't the case with your LDS apostles. In fact, I've never heard of any apostle during the past hundred years or so even claiming to have had a visible encounter with the risen Jesus."

You replied:

Sorry, CFR right back at you. Please provide:

1. A reference showing that to be qualified as an apostle in the LDS Church, one must have had a personal, visible encounter with the risen Jesus.

2. A reference showing that even one of the LDS apostles living today has even claimed to have had a personal, visible encounter with the risen Jesus.

I maintain that (1) there is no such requirement or qualification to be an apostle in the LDS Church, and (2) I am not aware of any LDS apostle alive today who claims to have had such an encounter.

As for me providing a reference to support my statements, I would start by referring you to the article on "Apostle" by S. Kent Brown in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1:59-61). Brown doesn't mention any requirement or expectation that LDS apostles will have had a visible encounter with the risen Jesus. Again, I am not aware of any LDS source that specifies this as an expectation, prerequisite, or qualification to be an apostle in the LDS religion. The chapter on "Priesthood Organization" in Gospel Principles also does not mention any such qualification. So there are two references for you.

The burden of proof is not on me here. It's on you to show that the LDS apostles are required to have had such experiences and that in fact they do at least claim to have had them.

We can deal with your other criticisms one at a time, once this issue is settled (if it is).

Sorry, but that doesn't address the CFR.

I understand why you have to avoid this CFR. You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your statement.

You made the statement, now back it up or concede that is just opinion.

Thanks.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Not perfectly, but I am not aware of any command of Jesus Christ that I am ignoring, rejecting, or not seeking to obey.

How about you?

It was a rhetorical question.

But it is interesting that you admit that you don't meet the requirements to be able to make the claim.

I also found this of interest.

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

So, what can we conclude about Abraham's obedience?

Lets not forget.

2 Chr. 20:7 Art not thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for ever?

Isa. 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

[zerinus]

The evidence would be a good place to start. I showed in my article that the story of those resurrected beings laying hands on Joseph and Oliver was made up years later and literally spliced into the middle of a sentence in an older revelation to make it look like it was part of that older revelation when it wasn't. Can you refute my argument, or are you going to trump it with your personal testimony?

You showed no such thing. A comparison of the Book of Commandments and the D&C will reveal a consistent pattern of many revelations having bits added to them as the one you had shown. That was not an isolated case. You just don