Argument for living prophets in the LDS Church

[Terrywoodenpic]

And it doesn't bother you at all that NONE of the prophets of the Bible were elected in this manner?

Is it not reasonable that the Apostles are elected.
The original Apostles were chosen as elect by Christ.

I surmise that the Prophet is usually chosen from the elect Apostles in much the same way as the Pope is chosen by the Cardinals, with prayer and the guidance of God.
Of course the Pope need not actually be a Cardinal but can be chosen from any Bishop.

Not knowing the details of the LDS election procedure, I suspect the election of the Prophet could exceptionally come from outside the ranks of the Apostles.

I can think of no traditional Christian reason why this should not be so.

Most Christian churches have far more unlikely ways of electing their leaders.
In the Anglican faith the Arch bishops are appointed by the monarch from a choice of three Bishops made by the prime minister.
Now that is another matter.......

 

[tomspug]

Is it not reasonable that the Apostles are elected.
The original Apostles were chosen as elect by Christ.

I surmise that the Prophet is usually chosen from the elect Apostles in much the same way as the Pope is chosen by the Cardinals, with prayer and the guidance of God.
Of course the Pope need not actually be a Cardinal but can be chosen from any Bishop.

Not knowing the details of the LDS election procedure, I suspect the election of the Prophet could exceptionally come from outside the ranks of the Apostles.

I can think of no traditional Christian reason why this should not be so.

Most Christian churches have far more unlikely ways of electing their leaders.
In the Anglican faith the Arch bishops are appointed by the monarch from a choice of three Bishops made by the prime minister.
Now that is another matter.......

When did a bishop or arch-bishop ever claim to be a prophet. More than that, when were ANY of the apostles actually referred to as prophets?

 

[dawny0826]

I don't discount the concept of the "modern day prophet" in any way. I believe there are prophets, individuals who are given Godly insight and can help us live fuller lives in these last days.

But I don't believe that their purpose is to reveal anything on a large scale that will affect our salvation.

Christ already did this. It's a done deal.

 

[Scott C.]

It is no wonder that their faith and belief system strengthens their chosen Prophets to accept the true nature of their calling.

No deceit or lying need be involved.

The thread is about living prophets, not Joseph Smith, but I need to refer to Joseph Smith for a moment to make a point. He claimed to see and speak with the Father and the Son on one occasion. He, together with a companion, claimed to converse with Jesus Christ in person in the temple on another occassion. Joseph claimed about 80 separate visitations from an angel who identified himself as Moroni. Moroni quoted from the Bible and gave Joseph extensive instructions on the church in the latter-days. These expereinces are so many, so fantastic, and so specific, that I don't believe its conceivable that Joseph was deceived. How could Joseph and Oliver both think they were seeing and hearing the same thing at the same time? How could the three Book of Mormon witnesses think they were seeing and hearing the same angel at the same time and seeing the same B. of M. plates? They either made it up or it really happened. Again, it's inconceivable to me that they really believed these things happened, but they did not happen.

The point I'm trying to make is that the living Prophets and Apostles experiences of today rise to the level where one has to say "this really happened to them" or "they are making it up". The revelations are too specific and too fantastic to realistically think that "they sincerely believe they are prophets because they grew up beileving in the church."

I grew up believing in the church, but if I were called to be an Apostle tomorrow, I could not and would not claim to be a true Apostle of Christ - not at least unless and until I recived a revelation of such magnitude that I could confidently say to the world "my witness of Jesus Christ is equally certain as that of the authors of the New Testament. I have the same 100% certain knowledge of Christ, given to me by revelation". I would have to be dead certain that God called me to be an Apostle and gave me all of the revelation necessary to be absolutley 100% certain. I would have to be as certain as any prophet who has ever lived in history. If I claimed to be a prophet, while possessing less certitude, I would be dishonest, which I am not.

 

[Scott C.]

When did a bishop or arch-bishop ever claim to be a prophet. More than that, when were ANY of the apostles actually referred to as prophets?

The interesting thing is that the Pope, as far as I know, does not claim to be a revelator for God. He interprets doctrine with what Catholics consider to be divine authority, but according to the Catholic I know, he does not claim to have revelations. That makes him an honest man.

 

[Scott C.]

When did a bishop or arch-bishop ever claim to be a prophet. More than that, when were ANY of the apostles actually referred to as prophets?

To me, it's not real important what they are called. I do refer to the apostles as prophets. It's also not real important to me to know if they have prophesied (predicted) future events (while I believe they have).

The critical element of an LDS Apostle, IMHO, is that Christ has revealed himself to them in a manner so certain and so specific, without room for misunderstanding or ambiguity, where they can confidently say to the entire world "We are living Apostles of Jesus Christ. We are the same as the original Twelve in our witness of the resurrected Christ". To me as an LDS, it is profoundly important and significant that such men with such knowledge not only walked the earth in the times of Christ, but walk the earth today. These Apostles are here today first and foremost to unequivocally declare that the heavens are open in our day and that Jesus Christ has revealed himself again to the world.

 

[Scott C.]

Like I mentioned it will be very interesting to see what people think or how they will react when this moment comes.

You should not assume that the LDS message of living prophets is false and that some day we will all know that.

 

[Halcyon]

Why must there be an alternative explanation? Is is not possible that they are prophets as they claim?

It's possible. But since I don't believe there is a God, I don't believe there can be Prophets. So, for me, the possibility is so slight as to be non-existent.

 

[tomspug]

To me, it's not real important what they are called. I do refer to the apostles as prophets. It's also not real important to me to know if they have prophesied (predicted) future events (while I believe they have).

The critical element of an LDS Apostle, IMHO, is that Christ has revealed himself to them in a manner so certain and so specific, without room for misunderstanding or ambiguity, where they can confidently say to the entire world "We are living Apostles of Jesus Christ. We are the same as the original Twelve in our witness of the resurrected Christ". To me as an LDS, it is profoundly important and significant that such men with such knowledge not only walked the earth in the times of Christ, but walk the earth today. These Apostles are here today first and foremost to unequivocally declare that the heavens are open in our day and that Jesus Christ has revealed himself again to the world.

If it's so darn important, how about the last 1800 years before the LDS church when there WERE no modern-day successors to the original twelve?

 

[madhatter85]

If it's so darn important, how about the last 1800 years before the LDS church when there WERE no modern-day successors to the original twelve?

John the Baptist and Peter James and John, then resurected beings, restored the pristhood Authority to Oliver cowdry and Joseph Smith. John the bapsist restoring the Aaronic priesthood and Peter James and John Restoring the Melchezidek

 

[Scott C.]

If it's so darn important, how about the last 1800 years before the LDS church when there WERE no modern-day successors to the original twelve?

I don't know why God did not send Apostles between the NT times and the 1800's. The people back then had the written word of God and that was sufficient to meet God's will for those people at that time.

We're in a new day. The Second Coming is close. God's master plan for humanity included the raising up of new Apostles in the last days to prepare the world for his return.

 

[cardero]

Those who are called to be Apostles often speak of their deep personal feelings of inadequacy and they wonder why someone else was not called, who seems more qualified.

This may be because they choose not to seek out other qualified candidates outside of their own membership. As long as they can continue to ensure others that the calling must come from within the organization, they have no other reason to contend with any one else’s revelation whether this person is qualified, inspired or otherwise.

To pronounce self-doubt produces the appearance of a humbling and endearing human quality. For a leader to fervently pursue such doubt could lead to disfellowship or disgrace (two places in which a leader would never prefer to stand among their peers).

ScottC writes: You should not assume that the LDS message of living prophets is false and that some day we will all know that.

Until that day comes, I will always consider and grant the LDS message as a viable possibility.

But......

.......will the LDS movement reasonably extend the same consideration to others?

 

[Katzpur]

If it's so darn important, how about the last 1800 years before the LDS church when there WERE no modern-day successors to the original twelve?

Tom, considering the fact that the original twelve apostles died without having named successors, new ones would have had to be appointed at some point in time. When and where do you believe this might logically have happened? Before you answer, think about the social, cultural, religious and political climates of the various times and places in the world. For instance, had Christ re-established His Church and called new prophets and apostles in Europe during the dark ages, what do you think the result would have been?

 

[Mister Emu]

When and where do you believe this might logically have happened?

If we are going to assume that God would wait until a time when the Church would not longer have state sanctioned persecution, He could have done so ~313 when the Edict of Milan made religious tolerance the law in the Roman Empire...

But that assumes something that has never been evident in any of the Scriptures I can remember having read... in fact it seems quite the opposite. From my memory God has always sent his messengers when they are needed, when His followers veer from the path He set. Not when it was a relatively safe enviroment. He sent the apostles out into a world that would kill them.

 

[tomspug]

Tom, considering the fact that the original twelve apostles died without having named successors, new ones would have had to be appointed at some point in time. When and where do you believe this might logically have happened? Before you answer, think about the social, cultural, religious and political climates of the various times and places in the world. For instance, had Christ re-established His Church and called new prophets and apostles in Europe during the dark ages, what do you think the result would have been?

Have you ever heard of hindsight bias? Maybe right now is the Dark Ages compared to 1000 years in the future, but you wouldn't know, would you?

 

[Scott C.]

Have you ever heard of hindsight bias? Maybe right now is the Dark Ages compared to 1000 years in the future, but you wouldn't know, would you?

Regardless of the reason for waiting until the 1800's, I don't understand the concern on timing. God works his plan according to his timetable and based on his will. One could ask why God waited until he did to send his Son to earth. Why is he waiting so long for the Second Coming? I don't know. I just accept that God does things when he wants to. I have no trouble with the idea that God saw the world as ripe and ready for new Apsotles in the 1800's and that the Second Coming is close.

But, we are getting off topic, that being the probability of those who claim to be prophets being either real, deceived, or deceivers.

 

[Popeyesays]

I Ido not think sincerity is an issue in the LDS station of Prophethood.

I do think that Prophethood is decided by God, not by committees of men. Jesus was anointed by God, even if one accepts that Joseph Smith is such, it does not apply to those who administer the church after the founder was gone.

If you do not accept that the living Prophet has been annointed by God then nothing that men say will be convincing one way or the other.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Sententia]

I know you guys are all serious but I remember in high school watching the news on crop circles. Stories about how the plants had melted over and did not break. Tales of mysterious flying objects that the air force cant explain.

All of these mysterious crop circles were the result of two people or their copy cats. They did this for like 20 years before admitting it. They even signed some of their crop circle art with their initials as scientist rushed to explain that it just looks like initials... it clearly indicates the craft must be malfunctioning and perhaps that is why it keeps landing.

All hoax. People believed in this devoutly. Still do. Been to Roswell? Some have seen aliens face to face and have passed lie detector tests and recounted the story through regressive hypnosis. These people are extremely sincere and many have nothing to gain.

What possesses people to believe this stuff? I mean you believe god is real and he talks and directs through people here on earth you call prophets.

I mean what do these prophets say? (Any prophets in general today...) Be good people. Stay out of trouble. Quote the bible. The end is near. These are the last days.
If you study prophets over time you will find a pattern. A pattern much like mediums for the demon and spirit worlds... Not only is this god of the prophets redundant he doesn't seem to know anything with any substance.

I can go door to door and say doom, doom... here sign up for a membership in antinoobdoom safe guard folk and your good. God will save you.

Obviously I regard god as false so prophets are obvious frauds as well. Statistically though the chance of a personal god, that you know the personal god and even have a sentence of his word in all of our collective holy works, and that you choose the right personal god to follow, and that this god talks to people... its ludicrous.

Most people are born and indoctrinated into... quite luckily.... the one true religion where god is still speaking! Wow... imagine that. Luckily our parents found the truth and raised us right. Yeah yeah... not everyone who is born accepts the code... a problem with the earlier matrixes that were working on now... how many edits to the book and faith and changes over time? The architect will get it right... just give em time... Oh sure... some are converts from door to door too... I get it. And L Ron Hubbard wrote a book that if your just read it you would immediately go insane after reading the last word. Scary...

So your original argument looks silly to me because it pressupposes prophets. Here take your argument and we'll use it to prove unicorn prophets.

Now many people claim to be living prophets of the unicorns.

1. The person knows he is a Unicorn prophet, is telling the truth, and is a Unicorn prophet. (See we dont believe in unicorns, or in your case god... so we cant go with option 1)
2. The person thinks he's a unicorn prophet, is telling the truth of what he believes, but is deceived (by Leprechauns, mental disorder, low intelligence, doesn't understand what a unicorn prophet is, misinterprets personal experiences, etc., etc.) and is not a unicorn prophet.
3. The person knows he is not a unicorn prophet, is intentionally lying, and is not a unicorn prophet.

Listen you have this view of lying which while correct is not complete. People can easily lie to themselves and believe their own lies while having no conscious knowledge of it. (Hypnotic suggestions are one such avenue you could probably explore yourself... But it does happen naturally... You get into a state and if something gets inside your mental loop they can direct feed you without your conscious mind filtering... You can end up with implanted memories and when you later "REMEMBER" them you pericieve them as revalation.) I dunno my mom worked a mental clinic for a few years and I saw crazy people all the time and many were not dangerous... They just posed a threat to themselves.

Isn't it also possible that the majority of the population has begun to evolve a genetic disposition to be subbornly accepting of anything told to them by figures in authority. The benefit being the support of a community, stability through conformity and is solution irregardless of intelligence of allowing anyone to discern the immediate truth of something. (If it disagrees with your programming then its false) Another postulate.

In any event there is no proof that the prophets are prophets other then the prophets saying they are prophets. I dont care if a billion people believed them and the prophet is really, really sincere, religious, mentally sound and an ethics professor and directly descendant from Wyatt Earp. Saying something doesn't make something true. Sheesh if it was that easy we could save a lot time then this here scientific stuff which has had infinitely more results and sucesses in terms of being good for mankind and humanity in just the last 100 years then religion has had in over 1000s of years.

Its why you can read this online. Think about it.

 

[tomspug]

Real prophets predict things that actually come true. False prophets just call themselves prophets but don't actually accomplish anything significant.

 

[Scott C.]

Now many people claim to be living prophets of the unicorns.

1. The person knows he is a Unicorn prophet, is telling the truth, and is a Unicorn prophet. (See we dont believe in unicorns, or in your case god... so we cant go with option 1)
2. The person thinks he's a unicorn prophet, is telling the truth of what he believes, but is deceived (by Leprechauns, mental disorder, low intelligence, doesn't understand what a unicorn prophet is, misinterprets personal experiences, etc., etc.) and is not a unicorn prophet.
3. The person knows he is not a unicorn prophet, is intentionally lying, and is not a unicorn prophet.

Show me an institution on earth with leaders of similar intelligence, competence, integrity and soundness of mind as that of the LDS prophets, but who claim to be prophets of the unicorns. Point me to these people so I can examine their message and character. I will then be happy to tell you if I think they are a 1, 2, or 3.

The examples you give of self deceived people don't match the characteristics or the message of those I consider to be prophets.