Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

[zerinus]

Thanks for the morning amusement. I especially enjoyed the magenta(?) but you forgot to post in ALL CAPS!!

I just edited my post #191 to Rob. Have a look, and tell me if you like it any better!

[Vance]

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.

There, made it a little bit more accurate. There are large amounts of revelation occuring at all levels of Church organization. None of which is canonized in the D&C.

Where as, due to the Apostasy, revelation in the ancient Church went from a flood to a dry lifeless gulch.

Are you wanting us to compare the two?

[Vance]

I smell a whiff of the standard Evangelical double standard operating here.

A whiff?

The odorous stench is sufficient to overcome the olfactory senses and cause gag reflexes.

[Vance]

I don't know the details of the process for selecting Church leaders and I don't know about any of their personal spiritual experiences - and I'm sure you don't either.

When you say "the big lie", you're saying you have knowledge that you simply don't posess. The best you could honestly say is that you have doubts , suspicions, or simply don't know. Calling the process 'the big lie" is a lie - and deserves sarcastic criticism.

[Bernard Gui]

Honestly, I don't think most LDS would know what to think if something like that happened. It'd be like "What did he say...?"

Something like that happened on the day the revelation on the Priesthood was released.

I remember exactly what I thought....in fact, I remember where I was, who I was with,

what we both felt on hearing it, and what we said about it at the time.

Bernard

[Vance]

I started reading this thread from the beginning. I am getting confused as to what point you are attempting to make.

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.

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.

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.

Is this major back pedalling or just plain confusion?

[Confidential Informant]

One more thread begun by Rob which only serves to convince me that if "heaven" is populated w/ people like him, I just as soon be somewhere else.

C.I.

[Vance]

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.

[Vance]

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.

When your "whole" argument is built with pieces and each piece of the "whole" has been addressed (and shown to be the result of using a double standard), how does that not address "the argument as a whole"?

[Vance]

revelation...

the new handbook of instructions is half the size of the old one. Why? We are supposed to be getting personal revelations for ourselves (rather than relying on others to do our thinking for us).

The biggest revelation currently? is "you need to get your own revelations"...

(Book of Mormon | Alma 26:22)

22 Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing

[Vance]

One more thread begun by Rob which only serves to convince me that if "heaven" is populated w/ people like him, I just as soon be somewhere else.

C.I.

[Vance]

Here's a start for you: (Thomas Monson, Gordon Hinckley, Howard Hunter, Ezra Benson, Spencer Kimball) climbed to the Presidency of

the LDS Church by out living their predecessor.

And God didn't have anything to do with THAT, right?

[Gandalf]

You are not the first who thinks his vision is now "clear" now having left the Church..... What you don't realize is that you've simply become more "blind" by prejudging things you simply don't understand, in this case how revelation, visions, etc. actually work and occur, they types and how often.

At the beginning, church had 1 seer and many published visions. Now it has 15 seers and we all have to imagine how many visions they have. Non believers imagine 0, believers more than that. It could be any number.

Maybe I am blind or maybe I was blind while in church. But I've seen both sides of the fence and I am happier where I am now. Honestly, with the attitude of some of the staunchest "saints" here, I wouldn't want to be in their company for the whole eternity, no matter what. What's worst is that I was turning into a bigot and an unchristlike person because of what I was taught in church (this includes unwritten rules and ways of thinking). Thank God I see more and better now. Call that blindness if you will. I would do it too, if I were still where I was, so I know it's no use arguing anything. May peace be with you.

[cdowis]

At the beginning, church had 1 seer and many published visions. Now it has 15 seers and we all have to imagine how many visions they have. Non believers imagine 0, believers more than that. It could be any number.

Maybe I am blind or maybe I was blind while in church. But I've seen both sides of the fence and I am happier where I am now. Honestly, with the attitude of some of the staunchest "saints" here, I wouldn't want to be in their company for the whole eternity, no matter what.

The scriptures assure us that we will go to a place where we feel the most comfortable. Not everyone wants to reside with Heavenly Father.

[phaedrus ut]

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

[Deborah]

After a review of the Church's on reported financial statements they seem to exhibit a behavior of hording a war chest of fast offerings and other donations that I believe members intended to help those in need around the world.

I have no doubt that my fast offerings go to help those in need. I have no doubt that my other designated offerings go where I designate them. I have no doubt that when the prophet says that no tithes or fast offerings go to the church's investment enterprises that that is the case. There are too many checks and balances, and independent auditors to question otherwise. Furthermore, in the stewardship of such things, those in charge are responsible to God, not to me.

[Senator]

After a review of the Church's on reported financial statements

How does one get a hold of the church's financial statement for review?

[cdowis]

Fast offering is held locally in the stake and dispersed by the bishops to those families who are needy in the ward. If there are excess funds, they are sent to the church to be transferred to those stakes who are short of funds. Stakes are strongly encouraged to keep their disbursements equal or less than the fast offerings collected.

[Vance]

The behavior is very much to protect and grow the corporation.

From your sig line.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

After a review of the Church's on reported financial statements they seem to exhibit a behavior of hording a war chest of fast offerings and other donations that I believe members intended to help those in need around the world.

Phaedrus

Ok Mr Axelrod, this sound like peanuts. Do you have anything more to offer us than peanuts? What evidence do you have that they are using fast offerings and tithes for purposes that they were not intended for?

And please don't say "what evidence do you have that they are not using fast offerings and tithes for their intended purposes"?

[phaedrus ut]

For those that asked about financial statements of the church we've actually discussed them on here in a few previous years. Here is one from 2007.

* The Fast Offering Fund had 2,005k

[phaedrus ut]

Out of curiosity I went and looked at the financial statements for the years in since I last went through them. The results were just the same. Some church employees are highly compensated, and donations for direct charity to Fast Offerings and the Humanitarian Fund are being stockpiled and not distributed. Maybe we ran out of needy people in the world.

Phaedrus

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I had written:

"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."

You took it upon yourself to edit my statement as follows:

"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."

You then commented:

There, made it a little bit more accurate. There are large amounts of revelation occuring at all levels of Church organization. None of which is canonized in the D&C.

You simply didn't read my sentence correctly. I didn't write that "revelations went from a flood to a trickle to basically nothing." I wrote that "revelations added to LDS scripture went from a flood to a trickle to basically nothing."

The alleged "large amounts of revelation" to which you refer are irrelevant to the sentence you sought to correct, which is concerned exclusively with "revelations added to LDS scripture." As you said, whatever revelations may have been occurring in recent decades, "none of [it] is canonized." On that point, we agree.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I am not permitted to preach here, and in turn, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to preach at me. Not that you'll get anywhere with your approach.

[Vance]

Vance,

I had written:

"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."

You took it upon yourself to edit my statement as follows:

"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."

You then commented:

You simply didn't read my sentence correctly. I didn't write that "revelations went from a flood to a trickle to basically nothing." I wrote that "revelations added to LDS scripture went from a flood to a trickle to basically nothing."

The alleged "large amounts of revelation" to which you refer are irrelevant to the sentence you sought to correct, which is concerned exclusively with "revelations added to LDS scripture." As you said, whatever revelations may have been occurring in recent decades, "none of [it] is canonized." On that point, we agree.

There, fixed it for you.

Not all "scripture" is "canonized". And the reverse is possibly also true, or in other words 'Not all that is "canonized" is "scripture"'.

You are conveniently interchanging the terms inappropriately to maintain your lost argument. The revelations that I mentioned are "LDS scripture", but they are not "canonized" at this point, (but it is possible that they may be "canonized" at some future point).

As the Lord has said,

D&C 68:4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

And again, said scripture may not be "canonized".