Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

I don't think my argument is that difficult to understand. It has nothing to do with the "intimate daily activities" of the LDS prophets.

And you know of their intimate daily activities....how?

Bernard

[rockslider]

I don't care about the definitions of a prophet so much as it seems to me the "old gray mare" used to testify of their personal interactions with the Lord. However, maybe it was more of an inbreed thing (i.e. it was always a given that the GA's are special witnesses who converse personally with the Lord, at a level well beyond the average member).

I remember my disappointment with Hinckley's answer to this very question during nationwide telecast interviews.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

Perhaps. I've written many brilliant posts, of course, and not every line of Shakespeare or of Homer is equally memorable. Such is life in this fallen, mortal state.

But it was perfectly adequate to the challenge.

Rob Bowman appears to believe that there is a specific frequency of revelation that one must receive in order to be a prophet. He doesn't inform us what the precise figure is, but seems to imagine that, while Jonah and the other minor prophets of the Bible qualify despite the brevity of their books (when they've even written books) and the paucity of their known revelations, Latter-day Saint prophets after the death of Brigham Young do not.

I think this is demonstrably false, at least if one uses the Bible (as Mr. Bowman presumably does) as one's standard.

Since I don't believe, and my argument doesn't presuppose, "that there is a specific frequency of revelation that one must receive in order to be a prophet," I'm afraid your responses so far have not been nearly "adequate to the challenge."

[Daniel Peterson]

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]

ERayR,

Hi. You wrote:

Just curious but how much time do you think elapsed between major revelations in the Bible? You seem to think they came in a contioious flow.

Nope, I've already addressed this, I think. God is free to raise up prophets whenever he likes. In the Bible, however, he never instituted a prophetic office that was perpetuated though an institutional process, as we see in the LDS Church. A person became a prophet because God spoke to that person, period. One did not rise to the office of prophet through years of faithful service in a religious organization.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

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:

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:

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:

...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:

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:

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]

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]

In another thread, Charles Dowis argued (as he often does) that orthodox Christianity made a serious mistake by replacing

[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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

* 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,

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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

[cdowis]

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.

[Kenngo1969]

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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]

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.

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.

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:

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]

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.