Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Nice try, but I don't think the problem is that I have failed to state the argument clearly. Try reading post #84 in this thread, where I set forth the logic of my argument. Then see if anyone here has even tried to deal with the argument as a whole.

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.

[ELF1024]

I think Rob simply needs to be taught, rather than expecting him to come up with the right answers all by himself.

A prophet of God is someone who receives revelation from God, even if all God is revealing is what is true on an issue. And No, the truth God reveals to a person doesn't have to be something that nobody else but God knows, as some people erroneously believe. To receive revelation from God simply requires receiving revelation from God, about whatever God is revealing to a person, and what God reveals will always be true, every time, regardless of who receives that revelation from God.

Perhaps... My sister in law is a self described "non-denominational Christian Fundamentalist". As near as I can tell, that means that she believes what she believes, and don't try and confuse her with the facts of the Bible. She believes in some kind of Rastafarian Jesus. As you can imagine, trying to get her to commit to anything is like trying to nail jello to a wall, which is what spawned my question. If he won't come out and define what it is he is looking for, he will just continue to deny that whatever your throwing at him "IS" what he is searching for.

Then again, I may just be cynical...

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

Because that's the meaning of the word venerate.

I find your double standard, with regard to biblical prophets and post-biblical prophets, painfully obvious.

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.

Precisely my point.

But, as I've pointed out, I'm utterly unconvinced of your "larger argument." In and of itself, neither the pace of the production of revelations over the past century nor their specific content (let alone the age of those who have received them or the manner in which those who received them attained to their ecclesiastical positions) demonstrates that Latter-day Saint prophets aren't prophets or that revelations received by Latter-day Saints aren't genuine revelations.

Until you wrestle with the cumulative nature of the argument as a whole, you haven't effectively answered it.

I've been critiquing your overall stance, and arguing for mine, for roughly twenty-five years. And there's much, much more to come. I've hardly started.

[TAO]

* the consistently old ages of the prophets at the time they take their office as contrasted to Joseph (24) and Brigham (46)

Similarly to how some prophets (like Moses) were old, while others (like Jacob) were young. Not much difference to the Bible IMO.

* the fact that these "prophets" obtain their office through what looks suspiciously like a seniority system

Prophets in the Bible oftentimes inherited their prophetship through family lines, did they not? That's still a system, and it doesn't make them any less prophets.

* the fact that Joseph and Brigham were theological innovators while all of the prophets since then have been theological conservators

In the beginning, there was alot to reveal, nowdays there is alot to protect. However, there is also still things to reveal, but they come much less often.

* the flood of new canonical or otherwise publicly disseminated revelations through Joseph compared to the trickle since his death

Already explained this...

* 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)

Notable to who? All revelation given to the prophets is notable, be it the removal of the priesthood restriction as prophesied, or, the advice to finance well given by Hinkley before this economic downturn we are in right now happened.

* 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

Except that the apostles are not called regularly. Thus, neither is the prophet called regularly.

Notice that the issue is not the revelatory output of any one prophet;

I think you need to look again to see what is revelation.

that none of the above points is meant to function as a stand-alone refutation of the LDS claim to be led by prophets;

No, you put them together to get a refutation, however, if I eliminate a few of them, will you still hold to your point?

and that the argument is a cumulative-case argument, not a deductive argument.

Well, we could go back and look at all the statements the prophets have made, and I'm sure I could find some things you haven't thought of. Revelation is not always a change in policy, oftentimes, in fact, it's advice.

Hope this helps.

Well... I don't really see much of a difference compared to your other posts tbh, but that's my opinion =P.

[Bill Hamblin]

* the consistently old ages of the prophets at the time they take their office as contrasted to Joseph (24) and Brigham (46)

Alas, then Moses must not be a prophet.

* the fact that these "prophets" obtain their office through what looks suspiciously like a seniority system

Alas, the Elisha and Peter must not be prophets.

* the fact that Joseph and Brigham were theological innovators while all of the prophets since then have been theological conservators

Alas, Jesus, who came to fulfill the Law, must not be a prophet.

* the flood of new canonical or otherwise publicly disseminated revelations through Joseph compared to the trickle since his death

You mean, for example, like the amount of revelation during the life of Jesus vs. during the lives of the Apostles?

* 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)

Alas Jeremiah, who advocated submission to Babylon, must not be a prophet.

Your double standard could not be any more clear.

[cdowis]

CFR that Joshua was a prophet.

You're kidding, right?

Joshua [1] Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,

[2] Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.

[3] Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.

I guess you will continue to use clever sophistry to deny that Joshua was a prophet, even though the Lord spoke directly to him, and made it clear that he was the successor to Moses. The children of Israel acknowledged his prophetic role:

[16] And they answered Joshua, saying, All that thou commandest us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go.

[17] According as we hearkened unto Moses in all things, so will we hearken unto thee: only the LORD thy God be with thee, as he was with Moses.

[18] Whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment, and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death: only be strong and of a good courage.

But Rob Bowen asks us whether Joshua was a prophet.

Amazing.

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

But you also said

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

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

You then go on to list such stuff as:

* 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

I say this with the utmost respect. You simply do not understand the prophets. Your religion has lost those living prophets, so you have no concept of what a living prophet does. You only see Moses as a prophet, but question whether Joshua the bureaucrat was one. You really didn't know, do you.

And you want to teach us. Unfortunately you only show your profound lack of knowledge. How embarrasing.

My experience with many churches is that one has the "gift of prophecy" when they are charismatic and speak forcefully with enthusiasm, and use clever words and phrases. They are "anointed" with the spirit. They have lost the concept of a living prophet, so they invent something.

No mention of the keys of the priesthood, such as were given to Peter.

The LDS prophets are generally much more boring, or, as you call them, bureaucrats. Just repeating the same old stuff, broken records.

[zerinus]

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 your criticism in the OP that:

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

One fact (not the only fact) that reflects this change is that revelations added to LDS scripture went from a flood to a trickle to basically nothing. Joseph Smith was responsible for all of the LDS scriptures except for five texts added to D&C after his death (three chapters and two

[Nathair/|\]

Nice post, but no "Oaks"?

I only do that when I have something creative to say.

[Kenngo1969]

I only do that when I have something creative to say.

Then I dare say you're more creative than you think!

Yours under the stylistically-consistent oaks

[Nathair/|\]

Then I dare say you're more creative than you think!

I appreciate that. Creativity is one of the major lessons on my Druid path.

Yours under the developing oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Bernard Gui]

Thanks for acknowledging this much of my argument.

Hmm. So stating the obvious is part of your argument. Your accusation that Mormon

prophets are simply bureaucrats fails at several points. First, none of them seeks

the position, lobbies for it, schemes for it, or engages in political intrigues.

Second, there is no way, except through treachery, that an apostle can assure himself

the President's position.

You're still not engaging the argument I presented, in which the seniority system is only one aspect or facet of the argument.

I engaged every point of your argument. Perhaps you don't understand the answers you have received.

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.

The Didache is obviously not talking about the original 12 called by Jesus. The writer expects more to appear

and gives the directions of the 12 how to recognize and treat them.

Bernard

[evanrm]

the point I made was that alleged revelation in the LDS religion slowed quickly from a flood to a trickle.

I think a valid question to ask at this point is "What do you want in terms of revelation?" I could be wrong, but I see the Bible cover a period of thousands of years, but comparatively little in terms of 'revelations'. As far as canonised scripture goes, we have the flood of the New Testament over the course of 90 years or so (about the same amount as the Book of Mormon, PoGP etc), and then silence.

I think that in terms of amount, Joseph Smith had a lot of important revelations, from the point of view of the LDS, in order to correct mistakes in the theology of the day. Since then, the messages of the prophets have been about how to live as God commands. Is revelation limited only to monumental descriptions of heaven? Can revelation be quite ordinary, and practical?

But if you really want to do the comparison, you should consider all of the alleged revelations that various Pentecostals and charismatics have claimed to receive in the past century. The number probably runs into the thousands.

That appears to be a somewhat vague answer. Could you name some of these revelations? Are these personal revelations? Are they revelations to the entire Pentecostal community? Are you talking about speaking in tongues?

An American in the late 1970s, a decade after Martin Luther King's assassination, decides that people of color can hold the LDS priesthood. That's a revelation?! Now, if he had come up with that in the 1870s, you'd have something of a more plausible argument.

Although I see the point you are trying to make, it appears that you link authenticity of revelation to it's occurrence before social issues.

[Monster]

Joseph Fielding Smith prophesied that men would never walk on the moon.

[stemelbow]

I'm feeling the point has been watered down since the OP was offered, but oh well.

If LDS claim we have an open canon, and that is what Rob is taking issue with, then I see nothing wrong with pointing out that what he expects is not necessarily what God expects.

If an open canon entails the option for additional revelation at any point, then LDS have made their case. Rob assumes that LDS revelation that is not added to the canon, officially, is not revelation or is not the same type of revelation that was given since BY. Whatever. It seems the point has been so watered down to not really mean anything to me. What does it matter if revelation has been officially added to the canon or not, particularly if revelation is given so frequently? It comes and comes for us...and most consider that which comes and comes as trust worthy and inspired as that which is the canon. We don't faithfully listen, watch, read, study conference talks for any other reason.

love,

stem

[cdowis]

I want to make some observations relating to my last post. An apology, of sorts.

There are many inspired leaders in the Christian church, and it was not my intention to show disrespect to their work in bringing souls to Christ. I guess I overstated my point that a prophet is different from an inspired leader with the responsibilities and duties of the priesthood. Without the priesthood and their keys, we would not have the ordinances which will bring us to the presence of the Father.

Again, I apologize if I was rather "over the top" in my comments.

[cdowis]

Joseph Fielding Smith prophesied that men would never walk on the moon.

We have had many discussions on the difference between expressing an opinion and speaking as a prophet. Pres. Hinckley was very careful in telling us when he was giving his opinion.

Unfortunately Pres. Smith was not so careful. He was very.... confident .... about his views on a wide range of topics.

[LeSellers]

Joseph Fielding Smith prophesied that men would never walk on the moon.

CFR. Chapter and verse.

Lehi

[Deborah]

Joseph Fielding Smith prophesied that men would never walk on the moon.

In the first place I would hardly call it a prophecy. Secondly, he wasn't the prophet of the church at the time and thirdly he said it in a stake conference, not a general conference. It was clearly not meant as revelation or doctrine though he may have had reasons to make such a strong statement at the time.

All that aside, if you want to get nit-picky, I hardly call a few men taking a few steps as walking on the moon. Have any men been back in the last nearly 40 years?

[cdowis]

LeSellers,

This is pretty much common knowledge. I even remember a family member talking about it.

[Bernard Gui]

Rob: It might be best at this point to back

quietly out the door and put this beef

in the round file.

Bernard

[thesometimesaint]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070402104402AAdzysL

There have been 12 men on the moon all of them Americans. NASA's mission changed from one of going to the moon quick and dirty. To one which was on reusable spacecraft, and deep space explorations using telescopes and small unmanned vehicles doing lots of science. While leaving the moon to private corporations.

[Monster]

In the first place I would hardly call it a prophecy. Secondly, he wasn't the prophet of the church at the time and thirdly he said it in a stake conference, not a general conference. It was clearly not meant as revelation or doctrine though he may have had reasons to make such a strong statement at the time.

All that aside, if you want to get nit-picky, I hardly call a few men taking a few steps as walking on the moon. Have any men been back in the last nearly 40 years?

I will remember all of those stipulations next time a leader speaks. Then I can disregard their comments as opinion if all requirements are not met.

Actually I was just trying to point out it is not so much whether revelation is being received but what is that revelation and what value is it. Many leaders or the prophet specifically if you wish have said things that have been very revelatory and some that are not. Just looking for the best way to judge which is and which is not.

[Zakuska]

You're kidding, right?

I guess you will continue to use clever sophistry to deny that Joshua was a prophet, even though the Lord spoke directly to him, and made it clear that he was the successor to Moses. The children of Israel acknowledged his prophetic role:

But Rob Bowen asks us whether Joshua was a prophet.

Amazing.

Tell me about it! One need only look at the following verses to Know Joshua was a Prophet...

Ex. 17:9 - 14, 24:13, 32:17 - 18, 33:11; Num. 11:28 - 29, 13:4 - 14:38; 27:18 - 27:23, Deut. 1:38, 3:28, 31:3, 31:7 -Joshua 24:29

http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm

[Chris]

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.

Not only are they few in number but they also lack in quality. Now I would say the same thing about any supposed prophet that has ever lived - not just LDS. Prophets supposedly have a direct line with the creator of the universe and yet it took us how long to figure out that slavery is wrong (for example)? Smaller temples is a revelation directly from the almighty God of the universe... really? Or just a smart business move?

With all the problems the world is facing (and has faced), the solutions offered by religion/prophets are pretty much what I would expect uninspired human beings would offer.

[Deborah]

With all the problems the world is facing (and has faced), the solutions offered by religion/prophets are pretty much what I would expect uninspired human beings would offer.

Could it be because the purpose is not and never has been to influence world leaders, who have the power to make changes to solve the world's problems. Prophets speak to those who are willing to listen to warn, guide and prepare them for whatever may come in the world, not to solve all the world's problems.