Argument for living prophets in the LDS Church

[Storm]

you are trying to make something that is not there. the Prophet does not recieve a Salary. he has a living allowance which comes from the church's own investments.

To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.

 

[Starfish]

The president is also supplied with a home. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 27, 1994, p. E1, the president of the LDS Church lives in a "downtown condominium, the official residence of church presidents." In the Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 8, 1988, we read "The $1.2 million condominium at 40 N. State that is home to the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be exempt from property taxes, Salt Lake County commissioners ruled Tuesday."


Sounds like the president is a "captialists" also.

He's provided with a comfortable convenient place to live, but it isn't given to him. He doesn't own it. There's no fortune or wealth in exchange for the sacrifices of the job.

I'm sorry. This is not a good comparison.

 

[Starfish]

We've been down this road before and it would be a shame to waste time on it again. There is no monetary benefit in LDS Church service. Even those who are employed by the Church have mentioned that the salaries are low. Believe me, if you want to get rich, don't work for the LDS Church. Those who choose to, often do so for the other benefits, namely environment.

Imagine the hours President Monson puts in, at an age well past retirement. Pres. Hinckley was in his mid 90's, working at a pace that tired men much younger. Of course they needed a convenient, workable living space, and anything near temple square, where the church headquarters is, would be expensive.

The argument that the temporary use of an expensive apartment is comparable to material wealth, is really a stretch.

And if you really want to see a difference, watch a session of the LDS General Conference that is held twice a year, then watch a TV evangelist.

 

[Scott C.]

The president is also supplied with a home. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 27, 1994, p. E1, the president of the LDS Church lives in a "downtown condominium, the official residence of church presidents." In the Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 8, 1988, we read "The $1.2 million condominium at 40 N. State that is home to the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be exempt from property taxes, Salt Lake County commissioners ruled Tuesday."


Sounds like the president is a "captialists" also.

That is so silly. The President of the Church lives in a condo, provided by the church. He gave up his entire career and livelihood to serve the church the rest of his life and the church gives him a condo in downtown Salt Lake City, right by the church offices where he spends so much time. He gets to move in when he's called as President (about 8o years old or so) and stay there until he dies. But then again, he probably rarely sees the inside, since he's constantly working until the day he dies. Boy, what a capitalist and what a sweet deal. BTW, many of the few who are asked to give up their careers for the church, now live on less money than they used to pay as tithing. That's a fact.

 

[Scott C.]

We all have
Ed Dufresne Ministries

Juanita Bynum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just 2 in a list of hundreds

No offense, but you're speaking from the perspective of one who is not familiar with the lives and accomplishments of the LDS Apostles.

I really believe that if a non-believer were to get to know each Apostle at a personal level and truly understand the nature of their apostolic claims, that person would either feel a new inclination to believe or would become perplexed as to how to explain it all. They would no longer blow them off as obvious frauds as some do. Nor would they blow them off as weak minded fools, who while they may be sincere, are easily suseptible to being deceived through hallucinations, mental disorder, etc.

I'm not suggesting that this, in and of itself, would be sufficient for one to convert, but it would quiet most people down on the quick accusations and conclusions and would give them pause to think and wonder how it is that such remarkable men make such remarkable claims.

 

[Starfish]

No offense, but you're speaking from the perspective of one who is not familiar with the lives and accomplishments of the LDS Apostles.

I really believe that if a non-believer were to get to know each Apostle at a personal level and truly understand the nature of their apostolic claims, that person would either feel a new inclination to believe or would become perplexed as to how to explain it all. They would no longer blow them off as obvious frauds as some do. Nor would they blow them off as weak minded fools, who while they may be sincere, are easily suseptible to being deceived through hallucinations, mental disorder, etc.

I'm not suggesting that this, in and of itself, would be sufficient for one to convert, but it would quiet most people down on the quick accusations and conclusions and would give them pause to think and wonder how it is that such remarkable men make such remarkable claims.

Ten minutes with Pres. Eyring should do it.

 

[Scott C.]

To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.

In all seriousness Storm, in the entire LDS Church, there is a small handfull of men who are asked to leave their careers and do church work full time, either until they turn 70, or in the case of the Apostles, until they die. Those men are given some type of living allowance. Heck, call it a salary if you want. The point is that most of them are living on far, far less than they earned in the private sector. How can they and their families eat if they don't get something from the church?

Other than these few who are called to full time/life time service, the other millions of LDS throughout the world serve in leadership and other positions wihout pay of any sort. They keep their full time jobs, while serving in the church.

I realize that the corruption we see in so many places, unfortunately sometimes in alleged Christian ministries that are fronts for generating personal wealth, people become wary and synical. A careful analysis of the LDS Church's financial system will convince you that such doubt is misplaced in the case of the LDS Church.

 

[Storm]

In all seriousness Storm, in the entire LDS Church, there is a small handfull of men who are asked to leave their careers and do church work full time, either until they turn 70, or in the case of the Apostles, until they die. Those men are given some type of living allowance. Heck, call it a salary if you want. The point is that most of them are living on far, far less than they earned in the private sector. How can they and their families eat if they don't get something from the church?

Other than these few who are called to full time/life time service, the other millions of LDS throughout the world serve in leadership and other positions wihout pay of any sort. They keep their full time jobs, while serving in the church.

I realize that the corruption we see in so many places, unfortunately sometimes in alleged Christian ministries that are fronts for generating personal wealth, people become wary and synical. A careful analysis of the LDS Church's financial system will convince you that such doubt is misplaced in the case of the LDS Church.

Oh, I don't have any problem with them getting paid. I'd much rather discuss post #99.

 

[Scott C.]

Ten minutes with Pres. Eyring should do it.

I had the privilege, through a somewhat unusual circumstance, to be able to take a Teacher's Quorum (small goup of 14-15 year old boys) to meet with Elder Eyring in his office a few years ago, while he was a member of the Twelve. He talked with us for about 20 minutes.

It was remarkable and inspiring. The experience surpassed by expectations.

 

[Starfish]

I had the privilege, through a somewhat unusual circumstance, to be able to take a Teacher's Quorum (small goup of 14-15 year old boys) to meet with Elder Eyring in his office a few years ago, while he was a member of the Twelve. He talked with us for about 20 minutes.

It was remarkable and inspiring. The experience surpassed by expectations.

I would have loved that. Are we allowed to have favorites? Cause he's mine. He's my former college president.

 

[Katzpur]

I would have loved that. Are we allowed to have favorites? Cause he's mine. He's my former college president.

Sure we're allowed! Mine's M. Russell Ballard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your summary of what I'm suggesting is pretty accurate.

But that's where the problem lies. The reality is like the old joke that ends like this:

"Why are we running? We can't outrun a bear."

"I don't have to outrun the bear - I just have to outrun you."

You've listed three options that all seem to me to be fairly unlikely... but apparently, one of them has happened. It's not the absolute probablity that matters, it's the relative probabiliy. It's not just the likelihood of options 1 and 2 that matter; the likelihood of option 3 also has to factor into our assessment of which of the three is the most likely, other you're just playing a trick of rhetoric.

You've given three options and presented a case that two of them are "slower than the bear"... but that by itself doesn't tell us which ones will be "eaten".

No offense, but you're speaking from the perspective of one who is not familiar with the lives and accomplishments of the LDS Apostles.

I really believe that if a non-believer were to get to know each Apostle at a personal level and truly understand the nature of their apostolic claims, that person would either feel a new inclination to believe or would become perplexed as to how to explain it all. They would no longer blow them off as obvious frauds as some do. Nor would they blow them off as weak minded fools, who while they may be sincere, are easily suseptible to being deceived through hallucinations, mental disorder, etc.

I'm not suggesting that this, in and of itself, would be sufficient for one to convert, but it would quiet most people down on the quick accusations and conclusions and would give them pause to think and wonder how it is that such remarkable men make such remarkable claims.

I don't have any reason to doubt that I would find the LDS Apostles to be interesting people; perhaps I might even find them remarkable. However, I get the same impression from the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Guru Granth Sahib, and numerous other prophets and religious leaders whose own remarkability speaks just as much to the truth of ideas that conflict with LDS teaching as the remarkability of the LDS Apostles speaks to the truth of what they preach.

 

[Starfish]

However, I get the same impression from the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Guru Granth Sahib, and numerous other prophets and religious leaders whose own remarkability speaks just as much to the truth of ideas that conflict with LDS teaching as the remarkability of the LDS Apostles speaks to the truth of what they preach.

Just curious . . . how accessable are these men to the people of their faith? How much to Catholics get to hear from the Pope, for example?

I really have no idea.

Thanks.

 

[Sententia]

FWIW I don't see money as their motivation.

If we want to go back to prophets for a moment. I think I adequately debunked the original argument for most people. I do not suppose or expect that Scott who presented the argument agrees with me or that there is much I could say to convince him.

In his words:

I can't think of a reasonable alternate explanation that takes all things into proper consideration.

And

The personal integrity of one who claims to be a prophet does not prove that he's a prophet. I hope my earlier posts did not suggest otherwise.

Emu thought of another theory.. And didn''t you argue sincerity in your OP?

The effect of expectancy on results...

Its not acceptable to you so it cant be true... But your theory is not true to me so it cant be true... Paradox?

But, I know in my heart that I'm sincere in my LDS convictions. Someone might argue that I'm deceived, but nobody can successfully argue that I lie about what I believe. I am no different in this regard to most other members of my church.

I may have given a false impression in some of what I said.

Ok... I'll stop nitpicking... Seriously you sound confused to me. I mean your original argument is pretty weak. I think Cardero did a great job of being both respectful and in making you think.

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

And you tried to get him to think. You even asking that question is like... Isnt it possible that alien abuductions are real? In essence. I mean honestly... yeah, it is possible.... its just very very unlikely. Not unlikely like a lightning bolt might hit you twice in the same minute while your holding the winning lottery ticket and you dont even gamble unlikely... because we can prove all those things and though it may not happen its possible.

We can't prove god. We can't prove he talks to us. We can't prove the people who say they can talk to god are really doing so. There is no educational requirement to be a prophet but up until recently there was a racial requirement in LDS. Thats not an insult I am just stating facts. Some prophets who god speaks too decide mormonism isnt for them and just leave. Some get excommunicated.

Mormons outright admit that if the message is ever proven false then all LDS members since the inception of mormonism have been decieved. If these guys are really talking to the one true god and mormonism is the only true religion how do you even come up with question?

And I think there a number of people in this thread who were very logical and attempted a reasoned discussion. I find it difficult to seriously debate someone who believes the only answer is a supernatural answer. (Supernatural implying unproven superstition... even if its popular, ideas like angels, gods, demons, devils and ufos are simply made up abstract ideas that are unfounded beliefs... ie something that requires faith.)

Your OP does little more then argue that based on what you know... you can have nothing but faith and so should everyone else. If only we knew what you know.

What about what everyone else knows? If you knew what they knew would that then change what you currently know? If you close up and say this is it, i believe, i believe, i believe... then your just preaching to me.

If your asking my opinion... as implied by think about it... I would say its bunk. obviously for reasons I already stated. Another worrisome statement to me is this...

They testify that they have absoulte, positive knowledge of Jesus Christ, by revelation.

Not that its made but that you believe this somehow implies something? Some people believe in white and black magic and have seen real demons and have formed religions around it. Large religions that have swept across the globe.

Other religions know by revalation that their god, which is not jesus christ, is the true god. Which seems to contradict your prophets. Obviously one prophet, from your point of view, must be false.

From my point of view their obviously both false. You also feel that its impossible that these people are being decieved. Why? What if its a genetic defect of the brain that leads to a powerful sensation of being watched by something either wonderful or bad depending on your upbringing while triggering the memory center in the same way as a dream but since your conscious you have the ability to guide it. A waking dream. Perhaps it stimulates your pleasure or pain centers leading your to believe it was either a wonderful or horrible sensation or perhaps you apply a sensation after the fact when your recalling your dream.

But millions of people have had this... and they all say its divine... odd... were these millions of people ever told about god before? Why is there vision always something they have been told before... Or something designed to change what they have been told because they sincerely might have some insight or disappointment in the classic telling.

I will use Joe smith for a second but Im not picking on him or saying this is true... I have no revalation to guide me... But Here is joe born poor and watching his dad work so hard and is deeply religious. Joe feels sad because he believes hes not a jew and that means hes not one of gods favorites and this deeply upsets him. For whatever reason joe begins to dwell in this fantasy world where jesus came to america and having the religious background he explores this subject constantly. His job is pretty mindless and he likes that as it gives him a lot time to think. He reads like a fiend when he can... And sketches out a manuscript he thinks is wonderful. As he finds new information he revises his manuscript until its not quite ready... but he considers his prospects of publishing this... in his day and age... and comes up with a better solution. By then he never could have predicted this storm... this band of followers... If he start telling the truth now its all for naught and besides by this point he already believes his own story as well. And its making so many people happy and helping everyone .

Like I said... its a natural example that doesnt require angels or spirits and is more plausible to me then one that require things that need unproven superstition to explain. Dawkins argues that doing so is giving up. You don't know what happened and cant think of anyway and seem to have no capacity for skeptism except for when it comes to theories that contradict your life long beliefs.

And who can blame you? I dont question your faith but I would argue thats what your religion is based on. Be it based on faith in jesus, faith in joe, faith in prophets or faith in all three. There is no evidence, just faith and if it makes your happy it can't be that bad....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just curious . . . how accessable are these men to the people of their faith? How much to Catholics get to hear from the Pope, for example?

I really have no idea.

Thanks.

A Catholic would probably be able to give a complete answer, but AFAIK the Pope has a fairly full calendar of events. For example, the World Youth Day celebrations in Sydney begin tomorrow, last for a week, and are led by the Pope.

And on Sundays when he's not travelling, if you happen to be in Rome, there's a good chance that you can attend a mass celebrated by the Pope at one of the churches, chapels, or cathedrals in the Vatican.

 

[Sententia]

But that's where the problem lies. The reality is like the old joke that ends like this:

"Why are we running? We can't outrun a bear."

"I don't have to outrun the bear - I just have to outrun you."

You've listed three options that all seem to me to be fairly unlikely... but apparently, one of them has happened. It's not the absolute probablity that matters, it's the relative probabiliy. It's not just the likelihood of options 1 and 2 that matter; the likelihood of option 3 also has to factor into our assessment of which of the three is the most likely, other you're just playing a trick of rhetoric.

You've given three options and presented a case that two of them are "slower than the bear"... but that by itself doesn't tell us which ones will be "eaten".


I don't have any reason to doubt that I would find the LDS Apostles to be interesting people; perhaps I might even find them remarkable. However, I get the same impression from the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Guru Granth Sahib, and numerous other prophets and religious leaders whose own remarkability speaks just as much to the truth of ideas that conflict with LDS teaching as the remarkability of the LDS Apostles speaks to the truth of what they preach.

This is a great post and goes does the reheotoric and sincerity path of fallicious arguments.

I would argue that I also have no doubt that the prophets are probably wonderful people but I do not believe they are talking to god or visa versa.

BTW 9-10ths_Penguin, there is a revision of the outrunning the bear argument but I think your quoted one is more universal.

 

[cardero]

I can't think of a reasonable alternate explanation that takes all things into proper consideration.

The expectancy effect?

Another effect is Accomodation and just as some appointed modern day prophets feel that their position is a calling, the fear of "falling" must also be taken in consideration.

 

[Scott C.]

I'm afraid I find 2 (specifically the misinterpretation) to be the most likely, followed by 3.

I haven't trudged through the whole thread, but let's take a moment to discuss what you mean by "prophet." Does it include making prophecies, or does it simply mean one who speaks with the authority of God?

Prophets, seers, and revelators, as we call them, may speak the will of the Lord on any subject as the Lord reveals by the Spirit. That includes, but is not limited to, prophesy, church governance, or doctrine.

But for the purposes of this thread, I'm trying to limit the discusison to their role as witnesses of the risen Lord to the world - a sure witness they have by revelation.

 

[Scott C.]

That's an awfully convenient prohibition.

It would be more convenient for a false prophet to make something up and describe it in detail.

 

[Scott C.]

And, having been so called, they must be under enormous pressure to live up to that calling. I don't find it at all unreasonable that one might lie about that.

If I were called to be an Apostle (which isn't going to happen) I would not claim to be a true Apostle of Chirst if I were less than 100% certain of my calling. It's no small thing for an Apostle to say to the entire world (the following are my words and not a direct quote):

"As an ordained Apostle of Jesus Christ I testify that I have the same certain knowledge of the resurrected Christ as that witness of the original Apostles who were with Christ in his ministry, who witnessed his miracles, who witnessed his resurrection, who placed their hands in the marks in his hands and side, and who felt the outpouring of the Holy Spirit after he left them. As a united body of Apostles today, we testify to the world in solemnity and sobriety that we have the same witness and the same mandate from the same Christ as did the Apostles of the New Testament. Our knowledge is certain."

No, that's no small claim to make. I would not claim it unless I had the calling and had the certainty. I would not want to have to answer to God for lying about something like that. The living Apostles have at least as much integrity as I do.