Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

[cdowis]

Rob,

I guess this is just another broken record. I want to make one final comment on the question you posed in the title of this thread, Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

Some may find my answer somewhat surprising. For those who are content to go to heaven, to live in the presence of Christ, who are content to sing hymns for eternity == for those individuals the answer is, "It doesn't matter. It is a moot question."

There are many churches who can lead you to that location. Prophets are really only necessary if you want to live in the presence of the Father, and to become a joint heir with Christ, to become, as Christ taught, "perfect in one" as Christ is one with the Father. In that instance, prophets are necessary. As Christ gave to Peter the keys of the priesthood, to bind in heaven and on earth, the ordinances leading to exaltation can only be administered by the power and keys held by those so-called bureaucrats, the prophets.

Paul told us clearly that the Church of Christ would always have apostles and prophets within the organization.

So it all depends on where you want to reside, and what you want to do for eternity.

[Avatar4321]

The LDS Church is lead by Jesus Christ who speaks to the President of the High Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God and 14 other men who are called as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

Would that we would all live with the gift of Prophecy in our lives.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

[cdowis]

I think another point is that even if JS were a prophet, the leaders since BY are just "bureaucrats" == they are upwardly moble, actively moving thru the ranks of church leadership. He sees this as a career to be pursued, rather than a calling from God. But he later conceded that a prophet could also be a bureaucrat, so this argument is rather confusing.

Anyway, he prefers prophets who are spontaneously called, rather than the orderly process in the church. When I asked him about Paul's statement that the apostles and prophets were a permanent part of the church's organization, he was silent.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

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.

If you say so, but apparently you don't have time to show here how your critique affects the cumulative-case argument I presented as a whole. That's okay -- we're both extremely busy and can't do as much here as we would like. I also haven't presented my whole case in this thread, but simply one general area of concern.

[Rob Bowman]

TAO,

You wrote:

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

You missed the point that LDS prophets since Brigham have been consistently elderly. That is a significant difference.

You wrote:

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.

I'm scratching my head trying to think of evidence to support such a system. The following men do not seem to have inherited their status as prophets from relatives: Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3), Moses (Ex. 3:1-12), Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1-2, 19; 3:1-20), Elijah (1 Kings 17:1-5), Elisha (1 Kings 19:16-19), Isaiah (Is. 6:8-9), Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:2), Daniel (Dan. 2:12-23), Hosea (Hos. 1:1-2), Amos (Amos 1:1), Jonah (2 Kings 14:25), Nahum (Nahum 1:1), Zephaniah (Zeph. 1:1), and Haggai (Hag. 1:1). I'm not saying a prophet can never be related to another prophet (see 2 Chron. 15:8 for one example), but there does not seem to have been any such "system."

You wrote:

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.

In principle, then, God could decide at some point that he's done revealing new things for the rest of this age or dispensation until Christ returns. That's possible, isn't it?

You wrote:

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

You seem to straining against the plain facts at this point. When the Prophet-President dies, the LDS Church sets things in motion to replace him. The process is quite regular; in fact, it is institutionalized.

[zerinus]

Rob,

I guess this is just another broken record.

Evidently so.

-- we're both extremely busy and can't do as much here as we would like.

LOL! Try again!

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I wrote:

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

You commented:

Alas, then Moses must not be a prophet.

Apparently you also missed the word "consistently." Is the argument really that difficult to follow?

I wrote:

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

You commented:

Alas, the[n] Elisha and Peter must not be prophets.

I have no idea how these two men supposedly illustrate a seniority system. Elisha was minding his own business plowing a field when Elijah (still alive!) approached him and called him, as the Lord had directed Elijah, to become his successor (1 Kings 19:15-21). Elisha had no experience in a religious organization, let alone seniority in one. And Peter? Peter did not succeed anyone in his office.

I wrote:

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

You commented:

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

It is really quite remarkable how badly you are misconstruing my argument. And Jesus was neither an innovator nor a conservator of theology. He was sui generis, someone of a completely different level and nature that transcends such differences.

I wrote:

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

You commented:

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

Huh?

I wrote:

* 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)

You commented:

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

Sigh. I just know you're smarter than this. You're smart enough to see that this doesn't really address my argument at all. My claim is not that a prophet cannot give pragmatic counsel. If you really think that's my point, it's probably hopeless to try to explain it again.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

I wrote: "CFR that Joshua was a prophet." You replied:

You're kidding, right?

Nope. You quoted Joshua 1:1-3 as follows:

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 don't see the word "prophet" anywhere in this passage. You explain:

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.

A person is not a prophet merely because the Lord speaks directly to him. If you say otherwise, CFR that anyone to whom the Lord speaks directly is a prophet.

The passage also does not say that Joshua was Moses' successor. You can describe him as Moses' successor in the limited sense that Joshua took over the task of leading the Israelites in their journey into the Promised Land, but this doesn't make Joshua a prophet.

You wrote:

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.

I don't see the term "prophet" in this passage, either. Joshua was their leader, just as Moses had been their leader. But I don't see anything here to indicate that Joshua's position or status was that of a prophet.

You wrote:

But Rob Bowen asks us whether Joshua was a prophet. Amazing.

Now I think I see the problem. You were writing while half asleep. Unless, after all this time, you really don't know my name?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't see the word "prophet" anywhere in this passage. You explain:

Lol. Good one Rob.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

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.

I'll be sure never to offer you a position in a company or other organization, since evidently you assume that anyone in a bureaucracy may be assumed to lobby and scheme to obtain his position. The fact is that I assumed nor implied none of these things with regard to LDS leaders. I'm sure they're all very nice, ethical bureaucrats.

You wrote:

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

You commented on each of my bullet points, but you didn't engage the argument as a whole. That is, you didn't deal with the argument as a cumulative-case argument.

Suppose I said that I have something here that I believe is chocolate cake. As evidence, I point out that this food:

* is sweet

* is dark brown

* has flour in it

* has eggs in it

* has chocolate in it

* is covered in a smooth covering that is also dark brown and sweet

You could go through the list and argue that lots of other things beside chocolate cake are sweet; that other foods are dark brown; that there is such a thing as white chocolate; etc., etc., but a response on that level would not even begin to engage the argument for viewing the food product as chocolate cake.

You wrote:

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.

There were more than 12 apostles at the same time. From the NT alone we can determine that at one time there were at least 14 apostles. The issue is whether apostles were an ongoing institutional office that was expected to continue indefinitely. The Didache doesn't address this question.

[zerinus]

I think another point is that even if JS were a prophet, the leaders since BY are just "bureaucrats" == they are upwardly moble, actively moving thru the ranks of church leadership. He sees this as a career to be pursued, rather than a calling from God.

Well, in the LDS Church positions are never sought, by accepted. Nobody

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

I expect to reside in the presence of the Father and the Son for eternity, based not on ordinances controlled and performed by ordinary men but based on the sacrifice performed by the incarnate Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and on no other basis. And the doctrine that billions of people can live forever in the presence of Christ in a second-tier heavenly kingdom apart from God the Father is a tragically unbiblical notion.

Rob,

I guess this is just another broken record. I want to make one final comment on the question you posed in the title of this thread, Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

Some may find my answer somewhat surprising. For those who are content to go to heaven, to live in the presence of Christ, who are content to sing hymns for eternity == for those individuals the answer is, "It doesn't matter. It is a moot question."

There are many churches who can lead you to that location. Prophets are really only necessary if you want to live in the presence of the Father, and to become a joint heir with Christ, to become, as Christ taught, "perfect in one" as Christ is one with the Father. In that instance, prophets are necessary. As Christ gave to Peter the keys of the priesthood, to bind in heaven and on earth, the ordinances leading to exaltation can only be administered by the power and keys held by those so-called bureaucrats, the prophets.

Paul told us clearly that the Church of Christ would always have apostles and prophets within the organization.

So it all depends on where you want to reside, and what you want to do for eternity.

[cinepro]

Earlier in the thread, the question of whether or not "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" would count as a "revelation".

To that end, I find these changes to Elder Packer's recent talk interesting.

Original (spoken) version (at 00:51 in the MP3):

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You need to pull all of the threads of the argument together to see the piece of cloth. Take a look at post #84, and consider also my analogy in my most recent reply to Bernard.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

If God were to call a prophet Rob, how would he do it?

I am failing to see why any of these are a strike against the church.

Thanks for your reply.

[zerinus]

Charles,

I expect to reside in the presence of the Father and the Son for eternity, based not on ordinances controlled and performed by ordinary men but based on the sacrifice performed by the incarnate Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and on no other basis.

So what is your take of this commandment:

Mark 16

:

16 He that believeth

and is baptized

shall be saved; but he that believeth not [and consequently not baptized] shall be damned.

Do you think Jesus was not serious when He said that?

And the doctrine that billions of people can live forever in the presence of Christ in a second-tier heavenly kingdom apart from God the Father is a tragically unbiblical notion.

Paul believed that in the resurrection some bodes will be celestial and some terrestrial

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

He might do it in any number of ways. However, the issue here is not the alleged status of any one person as a prophet, but the entire class of individuals for the past 133 years who have claimed to be the Prophet and whose status as such is the result of a seniority system (as some here have already conceded) that is patently institutionalized and bureaucratic. This fact, taken together with the other facts I listed, support a cumulative-case argument that those men have not been and are not prophets. The argument must be addressed in its historical aspect with regards to the multi-generational process and not atomized as though it concerned any one individual.

One thing we can safely say from the Bible is that God calls the darndest people, and he does so whenever he wants, which is to say, no one ever knows ahead of time whether a particular generation or century or longer period will have any prophets or not. The LDS prophet is a human organizational office with a regularity, consistency, and even predictability that is quite the contrast to what we find in the Bible.

If God were to call a prophet Rob, how would he do it?

I am failing to see why any of these are a strike against the church.

Thanks for your reply.

[Nathair/|\]

Dr. Bowman

I'm certainly not qualified to engage your arguments, but I would like to offer a perspective on why we don't seem to receive the kind of revelations found in D&C 76 right now.

Not hard: Look at how the membership reacts to the revelation we do receive. How many members are freaking out over Pres. Packer's talk last weekend? More prevalent and more insidious, though, are people like me who simply aren't as valiant as we should be, who don't do our home teaching as well as we could or who skip our prayers once in a while, or are otherwise less faithful than we should be even though we know better. How can we expect experiences like the Kirtland temple dedication or glorious insights like D&c 76 when we do so little with what we have? I am as bad as anyone, and that makes it worse because I know better.

Yours under the embarrassed oaks,

Nathair /|\

[zerinus]

I don't see the word "prophet" anywhere in this passage. . . .

A person is not a prophet merely because the Lord speaks directly to him. If you say otherwise, CFR that anyone to whom the Lord speaks directly is a prophet.

The passage also does not say that Joshua was Moses' successor. You can describe him as Moses' successor in the limited sense that Joshua took over the task of leading the Israelites in their journey into the Promised Land, but this doesn't make Joshua a prophet.

I was tempted to reply to this one, but I think Charles can do a better job of it than I can. But I am just curious: What is your definition of a prophet?

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I only have time at the moment to answer one of your comments. With regard to Mark 16:16, if you want to cite this verse to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation, you've got a problem for LDS theology. The consequence of not getting baptized, if you're right, is not life in a wonderful heavenly kingdom that is second place to the celestial kingdom. The consequence is damnation. Only by linguistic sleight-of-hand can one maintain that immortal life in the terrestrial kingdom is damnation.

The fact that you had to add "and consequently not baptized" in brackets suggests that the verse does not self-evidently teach that lack of baptism will result in damnation. Suppose someone said, "The man who commits himself to a woman and puts a wedding ring on her finger is married; the man who does not commit himself to a woman is not married." This would not mean that the ring is essential; it would simply be referring to the putting on of a ring because this is a recognized ceremonial act associated with getting married. But the ring itself is not essential (though the woman might disagree!).

And now for something you really won't like: I doubt Jesus even said this. Mark 16:16 is part of the Long Ending of Mark, which most biblical scholars (including moi) think was added by a later scribe, not part of what Mark actually wrote. The manuscript evidence supports this conclusion, as does the internal evidence. I can explain it if you like. I wouldn't base doctrine on this verse any more than I would base a doctrine on what verse 18 says about handling snakes.

So what is your take of this commandment:

Mark 16

:

16 He that believeth

and is baptized

shall be saved; but he that believeth not [and consequently not baptized] shall be damned.

Do you think Jesus was not serious when He said that?

[Rob Bowman]

Nathair,

Your explanation is suitable for defending the traditional Christian view that we haven't received any new doctrinal revelations since the end of the first century: perhaps the Lord thinks what he gave us in the NT is enough to keep us busy.

Dr. Bowman

I'm certainly not qualified to engage your arguments, but I would like to offer a perspective on why we don't seem to receive the kind of revelations found in D&C 76 right now.

Not hard: Look at how the membership reacts to the revelation we do receive. How many members are freaking out over Pres. Packer's talk last weekend? More prevalent and more insidious, though, are people like me who simply aren't as valiant as we should be, who don't do our home teaching as well as we could or who skip our prayers once in a while, or are otherwise less faithful than we should be even though we know better. How can we expect experiences like the Kirtland temple dedication or glorious insights like D&c 76 when we do so little with what we have? I am as bad as anyone, and that makes it worse because I know better.

Yours under the embarrassed oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

He might do it in any number of ways. However, the issue here is not the alleged status of any one person as a prophet, but the entire class of individuals for the past 133 years who have claimed to be the Prophet and whose status as such is the result of a seniority system (as some here have already conceded) that is patently institutionalized and bureaucratic. This fact, taken together with the other facts I listed, support a cumulative-case argument that those men have not been and are not prophets. The argument must be addressed in its historical aspect with regards to the multi-generational process and not atomized as though it concerned any one individual.

I am sorry, but I simply don't find this arguemnt very persuasive. There is nothing in the bible that says God has to be sparatic when calling prophets.

One thing we can safely say from the Bible is that God calls the darndest people, and he does so whenever he wants, which is to say, no one ever knows ahead of time whether a particular generation or century or longer period will have any prophets or not. The LDS prophet is a human organizational office with a regularity, consistency, and even predictability that is quite the contrast to what we find in the Bible.

That he does. God calls whom He will. As I see it God set up the current standard to avoid confusion. One thing you alluded to earlier is that the prophets and apostles "work their way up the system" I love for you to demonstrate this.

Your assessment is correct, that once a person enters in to the quarom of 12 there is a seniority class system. But before that time there is no president set forth that there is a seniroity class. AS far as I see it it is still divinly lead and there is wisdom in setting up a senoirity system. Of course you can still think it is "predictable" in who the next prophet will be but nothing is ever set in stone even in the current system. Who is to say that God is still not leading that system?

[zerinus]

zerinus,

I only have time at the moment to answer one of your comments. With regard to Mark 16:16, if you want to cite this verse to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation, you've got a problem for LDS theology. The consequence of not getting baptized, if you're right, is not life in a wonderful heavenly kingdom that is second place to the celestial kingdom. The consequence is damnation. Only by linguistic sleight-of-hand can one maintain that immortal life in the terrestrial kingdom is damnation.

The fact that you had to add "and consequently not baptized" in brackets suggests that the verse does not self-evidently teach that lack of baptism will result in damnation. Suppose someone said, "The man who commits himself to a woman and puts a wedding ring on her finger is married; the man who does not commit himself to a woman is not married." This would not mean that the ring is essential; it would simply be referring to the putting on of a ring because this is a recognized ceremonial act associated with getting married. But the ring itself is not essential (though the woman might disagree!).

And now for something you really won't like: I doubt Jesus even said this. Mark 16:16 is part of the Long Ending of Mark, which most biblical scholars (including moi) think was added by a later scribe, not part of what Mark actually wrote. The manuscript evidence supports this conclusion, as does the internal evidence. I can explain it if you like. I wouldn't base doctrine on this verse any more than I would base a doctrine on what verse 18 says about handling snakes.

Well, you do have a point, in that the text of the New Testament as we have it is not in perfect condition. It has been changed, and indeed corrupted. We know that from modern revelation. The Book of Mormon tells us that. So thanks for pointing that out. However, we don

[changed]

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