Argument for living prophets in the LDS Church

[Storm]

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.

Revelation that they're forbidden to reveal?

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

Not really, since that would almost inevitably lead to the false prophet being exposed.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that true prophets are so common that your church is able to have 15 unbroken lines of them. I'd have trouble believing that there were 15 in the world at any given time. It's going to take more than your personal conviction to convince me that these are anything but men who have deluded themselves into thinking that they speak for God at best.

 

[cardero]

ScottC writes: A perfect knowledge is a knowledge that can't be any stronger. See the example I gave earlier this morning in a different post, concerning the perfect knowledge that I have of my wife.

1. She exists.
2. She is a physical being.
3. She is my wife.

These examples (through a simple meeting of your wife and a quick check of marital records) could easily be verified and easily concluded to a Truth (or an Untruth).

1 Jesus Christ lives.
2. He is a resurrected physical being.
3. He is our Savior.

No matter how many proclamations the LDS prophets make about the above Jesus examples they must still instill faith, not only in their personal inspirations but to their announcements to the congregation. They may have a good understanding about the life of Jesus (possibly from personal revelation or reflection, heresay or from what they have read) but they do not have the Truth or the Untruth about Jesus. If a modern day revelator surfaces with evidence about Jesus that is contrary to LDS knowledge, I don’t think this makes the knowledge perfect (it also does not make it imperfect) but puts the possibility (of Jesus Christ living, resurrecting and being a Savior) back in the realm of belief. The playing field has just been leveled again.

 

[Storm]

BTW, Scott, any comments on the quote?

 

[cardero]

From Post #70

ScottC writes: I really think if you knew these men and studied their lives carefully that you also would find it hard to believe that their claims to an "apostolic witness of Christ" can be explained based on the "effects of expectancy"

I do not think that these men would want their lives scrutinized or their process of revelation examined. I do not think that a careful study of their lives would bring impressionable results. It will be the Truth or the Untruth of the message that will impress people, not the way the prophets live their lives.

 

[Scott C.]

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.

Your logical point is accurate and noted. But, I wasn't trying to play a trick. I see now that I subconciously assumed that the reader does not consider 1 to be ridiculously improbable. I then proceeded to make a case that 2 and 3 are ridiculously improbable. This would then lead to the logical conclusion that 1 is true, but again, only if you consider 1 not to be ridiculously improbable.

Which leads to another question. Why does one consider 1 to be ridiculously improbable? I think it's harder for an atheist to believe 1, since he first needs to believe in God, which he does not. It doesn't seem to me however, that one who beieves in God and especially in ancient prophets, should find 1 to be out of the realm of reasonable possibility.

 

[cardero]

From Post #71

ScottC writes: Yes, there are deviants. I agree. But if 90% of the devout Mormons are honest about what they believe and the Apostles are chosen from the ranks of such people, it's unlikely that most, some, or even any of them are dishonest about what they believe.

Lying to one self is also a form of dishonesty. It can also lead to DISease.

 

[cardero]

From Post #73

Madhatter writes: one thing you forgot to mention is that thier prophecies must come to pass.

A Prophet does 3 things:

1) Teaches, a Prophet is a teacher. That is the essential meaning of the word. He teaches the body of truth, the Gospel, revealed by the Lord to man; and under inspiration explains it to the understanding of the people. He is an expounder of truth. Also, he shows that the way to human happiness is through obedience to God's Law. the purpose of his life is to uphold the Lord's plan of salvation. all this he does by close communion with the Lord, until he is "full of power, even the spirit of the Lord" (Micah 3:8)

Your are assuming that the Bible and the words written in it are True. Your logic is circular.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your logical point is accurate and noted. But, I wasn't trying to play a trick. I see now that I subconciously assumed that the reader does not consider 1 to be ridiculously improbable. I then proceeded to make a case that 2 and 3 are ridiculously improbable. This would then lead to the logical conclusion that 1 is true, but again, only if you consider 1 not to be ridiculously improbable.

Whoops - I think I mis-remembered the numbers of the options.

Which leads to another question. Why does one consider 1 to be ridiculously improbable? I think it's harder for an atheist to believe 1, since he first needs to believe in God, which he does not.

Sure.

It doesn't seem to me however, that one who beieves in God and especially in ancient prophets, should find 1 to be out of the realm of reasonable possibility.

Why?

I believe that the Star of India exists, but I probably wouldn't consider the idea that you own it to be within the realm of reasonable probability.

 

[cardero]

From Post #74

Madhatter writes: False prophesy, by definition, is a prophetic utterance which does not come to pass, or which blinds and leads men astray from the true Doctrine of Christ.

It seems that the halting of such prophecy is it passes generations by is the safe-guard that could keep some religions hopeful and active. As we are experiencing today, there are many people who are becoming impatient with prophecy and are seeking spiritual guidance and purpose elsewhere.

 

[Scott C.]

Revelation that they're forbidden to reveal?

Yes, in a way. Sometimes God gives revelations to Apostles, or to anybody for that matter, that are too sacred to discuss. These revelations were intended for the recipient only. I have heard Apostles say on numerous occasions that the Spirit forbids them from discussing all personal revelations. The principle, as I understand it, is that Joseph Smith was directed by God to tell all. He spoke in great detail about many specific revelations he received. As a result, he suffered much persecution and lost his life. People who do not believe the well described revelations of Joseph Smith will neither believe the well described revelations of the living Apostles. So, the Lord directs, at least for the time being, that some things be kept sacred. There are times in the New Testament where Jesus directed somebody to "tell no man" the miracle they experienced.

Here's a brief quote from one of the living Apostles, Boyd K. Packer:

"I certify to you that the 14 men with whom I share the ordination are indeed Apostles...There are limits to what the Spirit permits us to say. And so I close with my witness, my special witness, that Jesus is the Christ,...

 

[cardero]

From Post #76

Starfish writes: Even the humble bishop who works his tail off, inspires me. Believe me, in this church, we do not ask for these positions. Very few want them.

And once they receive these positions, very few want to lose them.

Starfish writes: I can confidently assure you that the men who lead this church, each went through personal crisis of varied degrees when they were first called to serve. Almost all feel completely inadequate!

So why not appoint people who want to volunteer for such a service. Instead of inconveniencing other LDS members, why not canvas the planet and appoint people by their inspirations from GOD who may be more qualified? Why do you believe that the only modern day prophets that exist come from within the LDS organization?

 

[Scott C.]

I'm enjoying this thread, but it's hard to keep up. I'm going to bed as it's 1:51am where I am. I will be back, but probably not until tomorrow night.

 

[madhatter85]

From Post #74

It seems that the halting of such prophecy is it passes generations by is the safe-guard that could keep some religions hopeful and active. As we are experiencing today, they are many people who are becoming impatient with prophecy and are seeking spiritual guidance and purpose elsewhere.

Exactly. people become impatient but if they know a prophet to be a true prophet of God, why the hurry?

 

[cardero]

From Post #77

Madhatter writes: Good question, Have any of our prophets profited from the message of the restoration. I have to assert that no they did not.

A relationship with GOD is free (without price). Any penny made in the name of GOD is profit and places of worship don’t build themselves.

Madhatter writes: Clearly it has to be in regards to LDS scripture seeing as we dedicate years of our life to studying the scripture and scruitinizing every single detail of the Bible (the only scripture previous to jospeh smith) and looking for contradictions between it and the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of great price. and when interpited correctly nothing conflicts with eachother but instead work harmoniously to combine all knowlege of the past with current revelations for the Dispensation of the Fulness fo times.

Why shouldn’t it be consistant? As I pointed out in the “Please Explain how Joseph Smith could have possibly authored the Book of Mormon” thread, Joseph Smith (or the Being he was in contact with) did not really seem to be interested in documenting inspirations relevant to his time and future generations. Joseph Smith (or the Being he was in contact with) chose to continue the saga of an unprovable book, about an unprovable era and present it to a group who could prove to be more faithful. When we are discussing the agenda of prophets, this seems to steep people more in mystery than it does to enlighten a generation. This does not seem like spiritual progress.

 

[cardero]

From Post #82

Starfish writes: The problem with option 2 is that none of these men are stupid. Scott noted some of their backgrounds. Most have achieved impressive credentials in education, medicine, law, and business. For them to be honestly fooled is highly unlikely, to say the least.

If they were baptized in the Mormon religion and the knowledge and doctrine of the LDS church is proven to be Untrue, they were fooled way before they chose or received a calling to become elders/missionaries/bishops/prophets.

 

[cardero]

From Post # 83

madhatter writes: Exactly, we promote education on a secular level in the church. It is very important to us. Would a false prophet really want his people to be educated? or would he try to keep them as ignorant as possible?

I'm not sure what you are trying to point out here. Even the most intelligent people are faithful and hopeful.

 

[cardero]

From Post #84

Idea writes: Yes - anyone who really wants to know, all you have to do is clean up your life, be sincere, and pray to know. It is that simple.

What does living a clean life have to do with receiving communications from GOD? Do you believe that if someone is not living up to they way that someone believes GOD wants them to, that GOD will ignore their questions and requests?

Idea writes: How can you prove any of your experiences were not from some disorder?

Research, comparative knowledge and a thorough understanding of my current reality and environment. It may not prove the experience but it is a appropriate step in the direction of believing.

Idea writes: As said before, you can know with the same certainty that you know anything else, as certain as you are of the sun, the moon, the trees, your family - you can know with the same certainty.

With the exception of certain aspects (of the sun, the moon, the trees, our families) most of these things are easily verifiable.

Idea writes: I would adhere if the Spirit told me to adhere. The Spirit can let you kow who is who.

This doesn’t make sense. If one spirit tells me something different from what your spirit is telling you, am I to believe what your spirit has been saying because it has been saying it longer and because a group of people believe in a prophet who believed his spirit?

Idea writes: God is all powerful and does not need anything from us. Everything He does is for us, not for Him. He is selfless. Missionaries help people, we serve eachother, we teach each other, we don't teach God anything.

Can't people do this same "good" – the same service of "helping their fellow human" –
without having to stand behind the veil of an organized religion? Couldn't YOU help people because YOU want to help them and not just because YOU belong to a Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist group? Can’t you BE nice and honest without the will of GOD included as part of your spirit? Can’t you BE considerate and UNDERSTANDING without the unspoken anger of GOD hovering over you?

HELLO IT’S ME: An Interview With GOD
Chapter: Religion
Pg: 40,41

Would you care to approach this question?

madhatter writes: Can you tell the difference between someone preaching for gain and power and popularity, and someone teaching from sincerity? More than just sincere, sincere and not confused.

The person who is teaching from sincerity probably would not be part of an organized religion or institiution. Jesus would be a good example of this.

 

[cardero]

From Post #85

Starish writes: Isn't it unique in our church how the leaders do not aspire or prepare in career or formal education for religious leadership? There are no theology degrees, nor seminary training with the plans of ministerial or clergy careers.

We seek after our own interests, be it medicine, law, teaching, business, farming, etc. No plans, whatsoever to any high church calling. And, as I said earlier, none even want such callings. But because of the knowledge of the truthfulness of the gospel, when God calls, you go. You put down your fishing nets, like the apostles of old, and go.

To put aside an honorable lifetime career, and the highest reputation of honesty and integrity, and assume a life of deception, or delusion, is nothing short of ridiculous.

With all these different religious organizations, establishments and interpretations, and the various ways people come to know and worship GOD, could you be inferring that there are people who are leading ridiculous lives or are wasting their time?

 

[cardero]

From Post #87

Madhatter writes: I have moved by comments to a new thread to adress them there:
Christians: How to tell if a Prophet is a true Prophet

What makes you believe that Christians are the only ones who can tell a true prophet? What makes you think that GOD is Christian?

 

[cardero]

From Post #93

ScottC writes: I'm certain that the Apostles are called from the ranks of the honest.

I would believe that the ability to "listen" carefully would take precedence over honesty. If one is hiring someone for dictation they are probably more concern that the typist will accurately type their spoken message rather than worrying if their secretary is going to pick pocket their wallet. If the secretary ignores the employer and instead prefers to type their own personal notes, the boss will probably find this collaborator inefficient.

ScottC writes: That may be hard for me to prove to you, but it is a fact of which I am certain, based on all of my years of participation in my church.

This investigation and the results of this investigation seem a bit bias.

ScottC writes: I see how it works day in and day out with callings to leadership positions. The odds that dishonest men are called to the Apostleship are astronomically low.

You are again comparing characterization to the eventuality of Truth. We have already discussed that anyone can be honest or believe that what they are speaking is the Truth but that the possibility exists that the message they could be spreading is Untruth which would immediately deem them dishonest and possibly unworthy.

ScottC writes: They claim to have a "perfect knowledge" of the resurrected Christ, given by revelation.

Compared to other modern day prophets, they seem at the most, to be beliefs and at least, opinions. Beliefs that still need to be concluded to a Truth or an Untruth.

ScottC writes: All members of the LDS church do not necessarily have or claim to have such a perfect knowledge. Individual conviction or personal knowledge comes in degrees. I consider myself to be different from the Apostles in that regard.

What are some examples of knowledge that the Apostles know that you cannot know or would have difficulty understanding?