RTFirefly’s summary of the structure is basically correct. All of the Apostles have similar callings as prophets, seers, and revelators, but only the President exercises all of those keys. He’s the one who gets revelation for the whole church, although they all cooperate.
We believe that competition is antithetical to the working of the Spirit, so the Twelve are supposed to work together, not in competition. They do disagree with each other sometimes, but don’t make announcements public until they do agree, so you don’t hear about it much.
As for ‘proving’ their talents, it doesn’t really work that way. At every level of the Church, callings are supposed to be extended by inspiration from the Spirit (and, as a member of a Primary presidency, I can tell you that we do indeed pray about every assignment and wait for confirmation–or not–from the Spirit). All leaders can receive inspiration about their stewardship as a matter of course, so the Apostles and Prophet are quite used to doing so.
Way back when Joseph Smith was Prophet, he said that although prophets had fallen in the past and the priesthood had been perverted, this was no longer going to be allowed to happen. So we believe that God would not allow someone who wasn’t really inspired to become President of the Church. God’s house is a house of order, and everything is done in an orderly manner, so there isn’t really room anymore for ‘rogue prophets,’ if there ever was. I don’t have time right now to address RT’s concerns about this, but AFAIK, there isn’t any proof that Elijah or any other desert prophet didn’t receive the priesthood from the correct source. I would highly recommend Orson Scott Card’s A Storyteller in Zion for a very interesting essay on exactly this subject–I think it was the review of Eugene England’s book.
(Apologies that this may overlap a bit with genie’s post–I wrote most of it before I saw her reply.)
Correct, with a clarification. All of the Apostles are sustained as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. Yes, the President and Prophet is the only one authorized (authorized by who? by God according to us LDS) to act on behalf of the entire LDS church (and receive revelation for the whole world).
Incidentally, this order makes sense WRT other members of the LDS leadership. A Bishop of a local ward can receive revelation for himself, his family, and the whole ward. However, he does not proclaim revelation for the entire LDS church, or any group other than his ward, and his revelations will be in harmony with the teachings of the LDS church.
The specific number varies. There is a Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and a First Presidency, though at one time in the past there were actually three counselors, bringing the number of Apostles to 16. The First and Second Quorums of the Seventy preside over various regions of the LDS church. The fact that they are called “seventy” doesn’t mean there are actually 70 people, only that there are a maximum of 70 in each quorum. A few years ago we got the 3[sup]rd[/sup], 4[sup]th[/sup], and 5[sup]th[/sup] quorums of the 70 as Area General Authorities. I don’t know what the total number in these quorums now is.
However, that was the case in succession from Moses to Joshua (see Deuteronomy 31, Deu 34:9). Moses also place his hands on Aaron when Aaron was called. Samuel was taken to be with Eli (the high priest and judge of Israel) when he (Samuel) was only a young boy (see 1 Samuel 3). Samuel anointed Saul and then David to be king. This was at the insistence of the people, and the point at which the religious and secular leadership parted. After that, there is no record of a prophet until Nathan appears on the scene–so the record is silent on that succession.
The record gets kind of spotty thereafter. However (all repeat after me) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We are missing details of succession of prophets, however where we do have details, it appears the model of Moses->Joshua is followed.
I don’t have the time to research every prophet in the Old Testament, but I don’t find your claim particularly compelling, given the counterexamples I have shown.
Additionally, the Old Testament shows Israel in cycles of righteousness and wickedness. We LDS accept that when the established order of God is wiped off the face of the earth, He starts from scratch. Joseph Smith’s calling echoes this example, as well as Moses, and would explain why some prophets had no mortal predecessor.
Granted, and we believe in the cases of Joseph Smith and many of the LDS leaders was precisely what happened. However, once the organization of the Church is established, that choice is made when one is called to the Apostleship. Since the Senior Apostle becomes the head, and since God has ultimate authority over life and death, I’m comfortable that both in choosing Apostles (which is a process of prayer with the existing Apostles) and in the survival of one Apostle to become President, God is in control. This is very much in line with the New Testament.
As I noted above, the position of king diverged from the position of religious leader starting with Saul. This is the same as the LDS church, because the Prophet is the head of the church, not of the government.
I think this isn’t correct. The Old Testament records times when the Prophet was the head of the people, as well as times when a king is. I think it’s a false dilemma that having the Prophet as head of the church somehow undermines God’s abilty to “speak truth to power.”
And if Joseph Smith wasn’t a real Prophet of God, then the rest of it falls like a house of cards. If President Hinckley isn’t a real Prophet of God, then any other issues are moot. Hence there is no need for another channel of guidance for the whole church. As far as individuals are concerned, Moses wished that all the people were prophets (Numbers 11:29), and Joseph Smith agreed. Furthermore the testimony of Christ is the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10), hence everyone in the church should be a prophet, but only the President of the church is a (capital-P) Prophet.
Frankly, there’s plenty of room for disagreement in the LDS church, even disagreeing with the Prophet, at least while each individual goes through the spiritual effort necessary to align with God’s will. There is no room for teaching contrary to the Prophet. Anyone who would do so has already stated effectively that they don’t want to be part of the LDS church.
This actually ties in to Angela Adverse’s comments about sustaining the Prophet. The sustaining of a leader is not the same thing as voting for President of the United States (or other governmental leader). The leader has been chosen by servants of God, and the only reasons to dissent are either due to knowledge of the person that would make him unworthy to fulfill the office that perhaps his leaders don’t know about, or that you do not wish to be part of the LDS church. You see, sustaining a leader is a covenant members enter to obey counsel, and to support the leader in his calling in whatever way possible. It isn’t a vote in the democratic sense.
I feel it’s necessary to emphasize that last point. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not democratic, but Theocratic, with Jesus at the head, and His Prophet and Apostles here on the Earth. There is no room for democracy. If a leader solicits input on an issue, etc. (which is common), then so be it. However, once the leaders have pondered and prayed over an issue, and make a decision or official counsel, then “the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan, it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe.” This is the real context of the quote RTFirefly made on page 1, and is supported in LDS scripture: (from Doctrine and Covenants 1:38)
Well, I don’t think I can explain it any better than emarkp. Very nicely said.
I would like to bring up the concept of stewardship, which may make the position of the president more clear. Essentially, anyone can exercise authority only among those over whom he or she has a stewardship. The president of the church has a stewardship[ over the entire church. A bishop, as has been mentioned,. holds a stewardship over his ward. A father holds a stewardship over his family.
This does not imply superiority, rather a responsibility. Each position in the church has well defined boundaries for what you can do and what you should do. The Lord’s house is indeed a house of order.
We as LDS do not believe that the organization of this church was created by men, but rather that it was designed by God. We have been told that this is the way tthings should be set up, and are working to maintain it.
I’ve got to get out of here now, and I won’t be back for a few days. Gotta go meet my brother-in-law, who even now is on a plane back from his mission in Japan!
I should say at the beginning that not every system that allows room for expression of differing views is a democracy. I am certainly not suggesting that the LDS has problems because its structure isn’t democratic, any more than I would say that about the Roman Catholic Church. As I am using the terms, the OT kingdoms of Israel and Judah had room for the expression of dissent, but they were monarchies.
OK, but which of these were one prophet succeeding another? Saul was certainly not a prophet, and Aaron spoke for Moses, not for God. I can’t recall whether Joshua was a prophet, likewise Eli.
If the absence of evidence is sufficiently great, it most certainly is.
There are sufficiently detailed records of a number of the Hebrew prophets’ lives in the OT that the absence of any mention of the priestly role of Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., is pretty compelling. The calls of several prophets are in their prophetic books - Isaiah (ch.6), Jeremiah, Ezekiel (each at the beginning). We see what is mentioned and what is not - what doesn’t even seem needed as the books are written.
“When the established order of God is wiped off the face of the earth”? That’s a pretty extreme event, I would think. When does the LDS believe this to have happened? (That’s an honest question, btw, despite the rhetorical flourish.)
I really don’t see where. God’s ultimate authority over life and death, even in Jesus’ own words, seems to lean away, by and large, from making specific choices of who is to live and who is to die. (You really don’t want to say God chose those particular 6000 people to die on 9/11, I hope.)
And I can’t recall any NT support for the notion that, just because God’s said, “this is how my faith is going to work,” that means that everyone who holds a particular office will be faithful to him.
As I noted above, the position of king diverged from the position of religious leader starting with Saul. This is the same as the LDS church, because the Prophet is the head of the church, not of the government.
Other than when Moses was leading the people out of Egypt to the Promised Land - an unsettled time before the formation of institutions, per se - I can’t think of a time when God’s people had a single leader, who was both secular and religious leader.
And even religious institutions aren’t immune from the human reality of sin, of the reality that power frequently corrupts.
No doubt about that. But:
One of the several zillion places where Christianity and the LDS just plain have different worldviews. Any reasonably reflective Christian would say that if Hinckley isn’t a prophet, that says nothing whatever about the validity of the faith he heads; just because you have an established procedure for choosing a head of your church, and no matter how much prayer goes into that choice, there’s no guarantee that God’s going to speak through that guy. I can only regard that as institutional hubris, I’m afraid; God doesn’t come and go in predictable ways, and you can look it up.
[/quote]
We’re talking about a church whose Prophet has given divinely-inspired, the-word-of-the-Lord, counsel on earrings. We’re talking about a church that hides millions of pages of documents of its early history from its own members - and buys up potentially embarrassing documents (or, rather, tries to get people to donate them to the church in lieu of tithes, so it doesn’t have to admit to seeking the documents out) in order to bury them from sight. We’re talking about a church that threatens to pull members’ Temple Recommends for examining its past too closely, even when those members are doing so to defend the legitimacy of that past. We’re talking about a church that has people note the license plate numbers of cars parked near houses where meetings they don’t approve of are going on, and (if this is Utah) gets the local police department to tell them whose cars they are.
I suppose what ‘plenty of room for disagreement’ means, is all relative. But even still.
Christians are aware that “all have sinned, and all have fallen short of the glory of God.” Even if we had evidence that God Himself had chosen a leader, it would not mean to us that all his major pronouncements were right. (Even the Catholics accept the notion of ex cathedra because it’s only been used once or twice.) Leaders are fallible in Christianity, even in their leading. Respectful disagreement is a necessity - and can most certainly constitute one possible way of ‘supporting the leader in his calling.’
We’d all like to claim Jesus’ headship for our churches. But then we realize that while there may be a true, unseen Church with Jesus at the head, the earthly organizations we call churches are still run by fallible human beings.
Safe?
Suffice it to say that this is such a complete mismatch from Christian understandings of risk and safety that there doesn’t even seem to me to be a good comparison.
The point of this long post is this: the differences between the Mormon faith and the other major Christian denominations are manifold and substantial, coming down to vastly different ways of viewing God, salvation, how one’s life is to be lived, and all the rest of it. The differences between denominations running from Assemblies of God to Greek Orthodox are minor compared to those between any of those and the LDS. That distance alone, IMHO, gives a fundamental legitmacy to the question, “Are Mormons Christians?”
Actually, of course, the question’s been asked - and in effect, answered - from the Mormon side. Christians aren’t worthy of being admitted to a Mormon temple. Christians, unless they convert, may enter paradise - but we’ll be stuck in tourist class, as opposed to first-class or business class. (And Mormons try to convert Christians, whereas among Christian denominations, we don’t regard a change of denomination as a conversion.) Other than a few splinter denominations, no Christian denomination, now that the Catholics threw in the towel during Vatican II, considers itself “the only true and living church on the face of the earth”, denying the validity of the others. But the LDS does.
The LDS goes out of its way to give the public impression that it’s just another Christian denomination - that it wants to be, and considers itself part of, the family of Christian denominations such as the Catholics, the Baptists, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Assemblies of God, and so forth. But it’s equally clear that that just plain isn’t true - that the LDS believes it’s something essentially different from, and superior to, all of them churches.
And of course, this really does come down, in the end, to Joseph Smith. You get two fundamentally different definitions of Christianity, depending on whether you accept him as a prophet or not. One church does; everybody else that calls themselves Christian doesn’t. Brigham Young said that any church that doesn’t accept Smith as a prophet is “an abomination in God’s eyes,” a statement sufficiently strong by one of the LDS’ two central and indispensable founders that it hardly matters if it was only ‘opinion’.
For a coupla years, we’ve been tap-dancing politely here around the question of whether Mormons are Christians, in a sort of can’t-offend-them, let’s-be-PC sort of fashion, and I guess I’ve just gotten tired of it. It’s possible that the LDS church may be true Christianity - but that means the rest of Christianity, like you say in your testimony, isn’t. This is a contretemps that doesn’t affect Episcopalians vis-a-vis Baptists, or Catholics with respect to Presbyterians.
So it’s time to call a spade a spade. The LDS faith and the rest of Christianity are two different religions, like Judaism and Islam, not different denominations within a common faith, like Lutherans and Presbyterians.
True. There are plenty of ways of expressing one’s self anywhere in the world. It’s just that some systems allow for more ways than others. And, of course, you have the whole freedom of religion bit in the US which now allows one to express one’s self in a spiritual way (if one so wishes) and also in a civic way–one is able to separate the two.
True. At the moment, neither church, in its entirety, is a national government. The Roman Catholic church’s leader, the Pope, is the head of state of one nation, though.
And neither the LDS nor the RC church is a monarchy.
{snipped longish quote about prophets succeeding each other.}
Doesn’t really matter, actually. The issue, at the moment, for the LDS is that the designated leader of that church is considered, by the LDS members, to be the vessel through which revelation for the entire church, when needed, is issued. There’s plenty of instances describing the “why” and “wherefore” of this in the Doctrines & Covenants. (Feel free to peruse them from the Scriptures link from http://www.lds.org.
Actually, I kind of like the question as is, especially with the rhetorical flourish.
The LDS doctrine, IIRC, is that the “established order” became absent (or no longer in effect) sometime after the deaths of the first Apostles. And yes, we consider it to be an extreme event. So extreme, in fact, that, according to LDS doctrine, a restoration was needed and voila! There you have it, the LDS church (according, obviously, to the LDS church).
{Snipped longish quote about church oranization.}
Well, the LDS are kind of fond of using all of their scriptures to explain, especially to themselves, their church organization. Since that organization is described (actually, established) in the Doctrine & Covenants, it really doesn’t matter if there’s New Testament or even Old Testament support for it. So long as it appears in the D&C, that’s considered by the LDS to be scriptural support.
Which is, IMHO, why there are two counselors for the Church President, a Council of Twelve Apostles, the quorums of the Seventy and other church groups. Also, why, again IMHO, those of us who hold the Priesthood don’t get paid. All so we don’t see it as a position of power but rather an obligation or an honor.
{sigh} And we now enter, yet again, into the territory of “You ain’t really Christian!”
The idea is, for the LDS, is that the Lord guides that choice and has restored the church organization in these days. (“These days” meaning back in Joseph Smith Jr’s time.) Hey, there’s no guarantee that folks are going to believe any actual prophet when the Lord speaks through him. I seem to recall one guy in the OT who didn’t get much credence from humans.
{Snipped some stuff.}
Don’t you mean “other Christians”?
I disagree and apparently you sort of disagree with yourself since you just said “other major Christian denominations.” Anyway, aren’t there plenty of differences in Christian denominations which would prevent one from being considered an ordained minister of another denomination?
Nor are all members of the LDS church eligible to enter the Temples. Everyone is eligible to enter a chapel and listen, sing, sleep, etc. during the services. And one can certainly worship one’s deity whilst driving down the street, typing a homework assignment, etc. You appear to consider the Roman Catholics to be Christians and not all Roman Catholics get to participate in selecting the leader of that church. LDS members do get to have a say in their leader’s selection. There’s the whole “manifest by the uplifted right hand” in the sustaining of the church leaders. There really was a big to-do over Joseph Smith Jr’s successor.
Incorrect. Otherwise those denominations which require water baptism and/or baptism by immersion would not require that from members of other Christian denominations which do not practice that when those members “switch teams,” so to speak.
I’m given to understand that the LDS does not deny the validity of those other denominations, but rather considers them to not have the fullness of the Gospel. IIRC, the LDS teaching is that all denominations have some of the teaching.
Actually, the LDS seem to highlight that it’s (a) Christian and (b) different than other denominations.
I disagree with your observation here. I think my comment above shows the reason for that.
Maybe later on in the grand scheme of things, I’ll ask ol’ Brigham exactly what he meant by that. Maybe he meant that God needed to have the Restoration and maybe he meant something more sinister than that.
Kind of obvious. But, honestly, I think you were pretty polite and non-offensive in expressing it.
Or it means that the other denominations don’t have what the LDS consider “the fullness of the Gospel.” Doesn’t mean that the LDS dismiss other denominations as “not Christian.” Just that the LDS consider those denominations slightly mistaken.
Except for the bit that not all Baptists consider the Anglican Communion to be that far removed from the Roman Catholics, given the whole Apostolic Succession from the RC priesthood organization and that the RC don’t let just anyone participate in their Sacraments regardless of those wishing to do so belonging to another Christian denomination.
I disagree as is obvious from my comments above. And apparently you do too: “The rest of Christianity…”
Exactly how common is the faith between the Lutherans and the Presbyterians anyway?
You read into someone reciting facts something that is not there. Kind of like the way you distort facts (i.e., lie).
There is a far cry of difference between faith and knowledge.
This is what’s known, in the dictionary definition, as a lie. You posted the following two comments:
Now the first one shows that you, yourself, declared that the church leadership issued a prophecy (“spoke for the Lord”) and the 2nd one shows that you, yourself, know that the church leadership did not issue such a prophecy as you claimed they did in the first quote.
Just to throw something in the ring, I think you’ve forgotten about the Orthodox part of Christianity. They are quite different from the Protestants, and consider even the RC Church to be upstarts. I doubt they accept much in the way of common teachings or sacraments.
Just to say that there is a broad spectrum within Christianity, and claiming that Mormons have put themselves completely outside this spectrum by having a prophet is, to my mind, not very convincing. We believe in Christ as Savior, so we’re Christians.
We do also respect other religions–just because we think they’re somewhat mistaken (as, I’m sure, the RCs think about the Protestants, and so on) doesn’t mean we disrespect them completely. I think your prayer is as valid as mine. I’m willing to believe that non-Mormons are sometimes healed by faith (not by Peter Popoff, though). I’m happy whenever any of my friends have faith and are active in their church community. And now I’m going to go out and do the irises, so have a nice day.
True, genie, but to other Christians, we worship a different savior than mentioned in the bible. They believe this so whole heartedly that no other religion recognizes LDS baptisms.
Back to the OP about conference, I would hope that when people get a chance to watch conference they would do so in the hope of finding what we believe in, not what we don’t believe in or what is wrong with what we believe. When people claim that we arent christians, I wish they would watch conference, or even sit in on a sacrament meeting. Theyd be surely shocked to see Christ as the center of our worship, the primary theme in most of our hymns, and the center of our doctrine.
Theres no real purpose in this post, just wanted to put in my two cents…
I guess you weren’t the one who called me “snide” or some such thing earlier? Yes, dear Monty, I made the first statement in jest. Live with it. I’d much rather discuss issues than defend myself to you, so if you don’t have anything of substance to say this will be my last response to your constant digs.
That’s right. I am not the poster who called you snide. Actually, no other poster did either. Here’s exactly what Schadenfreude posted:
[ul]I’ll ignore the snide tone in which this post opened, and provide the actual quote, which wasn’t from a General Conference, but a special talk to the youth of the Church (emphasis added):[/ul]
I’ll have to remember that trick: (1) make a false statement, (2) get called on it, & (3) retreat into “I was just joking!” as a defense.
Why live with your lies?
Then do so and quit posting demonstrable falsehoods.
Here’s a neat trick for you to never again have to worry about defending yourself to me (or to anyone else here, either): (1) quit posting demonstrable falsehoods.
Constant? Bwahahhahahahahahhahah!
BTW, didn’t Pathros point out already that you have yet to post anything of substance?
With your last post RTFirefly, you’ve morphed the discussion into “Are Mormons Christians?” I don’t fully understand how that happened unless you waded into the discussion with that in mind, but maybe I missed something. As for the question itself, there is little merit in discussing it here, since it has been eloquently answered in about 100 pages by Stephen Robinson in his book (surprisingly titled), “Are Mormons Christians?” I suggest if you’re really interested in the answer, you get the book. (You may also want to try out the book, How wide the divide? : a Mormon & an Evangelical in conversation," coauthored by Robinson and and Craig Blomberg.) In fact, if you’re really interested and promise to read it, I’d be happy to buy a copy of the book and have it delivered to your doorstep (it’s only $10, but I can imagine that you may not make the effort yourself). Will you take me up on that?
The answer, by the way, is emphatically that Mormons are indeed Christians. I believe in Christ as my Savior and Redeemer, and I can’t imagine how anyone can claim that I’m not Christian. Quite frankly, I’m tired of what I see of Protestants claiming the title Christian as their very own. I’ve seen Catholicism and Orthodoxy dismissed as not being Christian just as often as I’ve seen LDS treated the same way (I noticed that you did make a claim about Greek Orthodoxy being under the “Christian” label, but I’ve seen other Protestants make counter-claims). Protestants don’t have the unique claim to Christianity, and I refuse to allow someone to attempt to remove my legitimacy of the claim of following Christ.
For someone who seems so upset at LDS thinking we’re superior, you’re acting the part of a rather black pot (as in, calling the kettle).
You seem to think this is a trivial matter, and I have to wonder, why? Just because it’s become common in our society doesn’t change the fact that it means punching holes in your body for decoration. Given that we believe that our body is a gift from God, why does this seem trivial? Furthermore, the comments were made in the context of condemning body piercing in general, and seemed to make the allowance for a single pair of earrings. The special case for earrings seems to be a clear allowance for the weakness of the people, just like the lack of an official statement on caffeine seems to be an allowance in the Word of Wisdom.
Many denominations seem to have folded on issues of morality. With nearly wholesale abandonment of sexual morality in our culture and mainstream faiths, how long before you mock LDS leaders for condemning premarital sex and other sexual sins?
(Bolded emphasis mine) It seems that you are of two minds–either we’re in Christianity or we’re not. If we’re not, you’re going to have to exclude a number of other faiths that are currently accepted as Christian, and you’re going to have to define Christianity in a way that it never has been defined until lately.
A word about your exceptions to the role of Prophet. You seem to be upset with any organized religion here, not just Mormons. Is that in fact the case? What is your stance WRT organized religion?
First you make the asinine comment just above (after all, if someone really is a prophet, no matter what their religion is, then that person really is a prophet. You will note that I did not say if the LDS church president is or is not really a prophet–I just addressed your asinine comment.).
Then you start a thread evidently to lambast the LDS church over in The Pit, yet you make no sense yourself in that thread. However, you do show your incredible ignorance of, and bigotry towards, the LDS.
Tell me, in that other thread, where I went wrong concerning the real identity of Lucifer. Prove to me that Isaiah 14 is taunting Satan and NOT the king of Babylon.
As far as prophets are concerned, my reasoning is this:
A) A prophet is someone who either sees the future or directly receives the word of God.
BUT:
There is no God.
No one can foretell the future.
THEREFORE:
There is no such thing as a real prophet. The term is an oxymoron.
I believe that every atheist is right and every believer is deluded. That I am an atheist means I am in the group that is right.
I am mystified that someone would believe in something that cannot be proven to exist. It’s as bad as believing in something that we know for certain does not exist. Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Scarecrow and the Cowardly Lion stopped believing the Wizard had magic powers after they saw him behind the curtain. (I’m talking about the 1939 movie version, not the book.) How many times do your prayers have to go unanswered for you to stop believing? Or are you going to tell me that all of your prayers have been answered?