Mormonism-The Benefits of "Living Prophets and Apostles"

[LivingWaters7]

One of the many issues that many LDS bring up in reference to why someone should become a member of the LDS church is that of having “living apostles and prophets”. Mormons believe that the LDS church is headed by a prophet (just like Moses Noah, Abraham, etc), along with a quorum of twelve apostles. They claim that anciently, the office of apostle was lost, Heaven was closed (God stopped speaking), and Christianity fell into apostasy with the priesthood gone from the world, falling into disarray, with many competing denominations.

But when one actually looks at Joseph Smith’s restoration, we see the same things that LDS apologists often accuse traditional Christianity. For example, the Salt Lake City-based LDS church is only one of a multitude of Joseph Smith-related organizations that sprung up in the last 184 years. See here:

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

Then one can look at teachings of these prophets and apostles. Instead of a purported clarity that comes with following the prophets and apostles, we find confusion. Some LDS prophets have taught that the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood. Some LDS believe this, others reject it. It is said that no one knows where the priesthood/temple ban of blacks came from, yet some LDS prophets and apostles taught that it was due to direct command from the Lord, that it is a doctrine of the church, etc. Some taught that it was due to the conduct of blacks in the pre-mortal existence. LDS also believe that the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother. Some prophets have taught that the Father actually has many wives, in accordance with plural marriage. Such an idea would never be taught today.

So, I fail to see how the LDS restoration brought a stability to Christianity that was apparently lost, according to Mormonism itself. It seems as if the “living prophets and apostles” bring more confusion to the LDS faith itself, and God speaking once again (if we entertain the LDS view on the Heavens being closed prior to the 1800s) resulted in dozens more churches stemming from Joseph Smith.

 

[kimg901]

I thought they were restoring the “ancient church”? The church before Christ? This is what some lds friends told me. Hmm?

 

[LivingWaters7]

I thought they were restoring the “ancient church”? The church before Christ? This is what some lds friends told me. Hmm?

They believe that Mormonism is a restoration of the original church established by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. They also believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was taught since Adam, and has gone through cycles of apostasy and restoration.

 

[RebeccaJ]

One of the many issues that many LDS bring up in reference to why someone should become a member of the LDS church is that of having “living apostles and prophets”. Mormons believe that the LDS church is headed by a prophet (just like Moses Noah, Abraham, etc), along with a quorum of twelve apostles. They claim that anciently, the office of apostle was lost, Heaven was closed (God stopped speaking), and Christianity fell into apostasy with the priesthood gone from the world, falling into disarray, with many competing denominations.

But when one actually looks at Joseph Smith’s restoration, we see the same things that LDS apologists often accuse traditional Christianity. For example, the Salt Lake City-based LDS church is only one of a multitude of Joseph Smith-related organizations that sprung up in the last 184 years. See here:

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

Then one can look at teachings of these prophets and apostles. Instead of a purported clarity that comes with following the prophets and apostles, we find confusion. Some LDS prophets have taught that the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood. Some LDS believe this, others reject it. It is said that no one knows where the priesthood/temple ban of blacks came from, yet some LDS prophets and apostles taught that it was due to direct command from the Lord, that it is a doctrine of the church, etc. Some taught that it was due to the conduct of blacks in the pre-mortal existence. LDS also believe that the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother. Some prophets have taught that the Father actually has many wives, in accordance with plural marriage. Such an idea would never be taught today.

So, I fail to see how the LDS restoration brought a stability to Christianity that was apparently lost, according to Mormonism itself. It seems as if the “living prophets and apostles” bring more confusion to the LDS faith itself, and God speaking once again (if we entertain the LDS view on the Heavens being closed prior to the 1800s) resulted in dozens more churches stemming from Joseph Smith.

There is no continuity of teaching with their own leaders of 150 years ago, let alone the Early Church of 2000 years ago.

 

[Marie5890]

I have recently run into this argument with Mormons.

I don’t see them actually looking at their leaders to see what kind of fruit their leaders have actually produced.

Their prophets and apostles are sterile when it comes to producing anything, IMO.
Absolutely sterile.

 

[Marie5890]

There is no continuity of teaching with their own leaders of 150 years ago, let alone the Early Church of 2000 years ago.

None. Absolutely none.

The proof is in the fruit borne, not the words spoken at a pulpit.

 

[iepuras]

I have recently run into this argument with Mormons.

I don’t see them actually looking at their leaders to see what kind of fruit their leaders have actually produced.

Their prophets and apostles are sterile when it comes to producing anything, IMO.
Absolutely sterile.

I agree. When was their last “revelation”? Even when the LDS prophets and apostles granted the priesthood to black men, it was more a negative revelation rather than an actual revelation with actual words from Heavenly Father.

The LDS church is facing many challenges - many members apostacizing, high profile excommunications, etc. And what do LDS prophets and apostles do? They discreetly post anonymous essays to the lds.org website to explain away controversial history and doctrines. They talk about doubting doubts, criticize mainstream Christianity and double down on tithing during General Conference

Where are the revelations? Whatever happened to “thus sayeth the Lord”? Does the Lord no longer speak? Has there been another apostacy?

Many women are asking about the priesthood and Heavenly Mother. Why isn’t there a revelation to address these modern-day issues and questions? It is not me, an ex-Mormon asking these questions. I have many female friends who are faithful Mormons and are desperate to know more about Heavenly Mother and about the priesthood and their role in it. All they get are periodic threats from their leaders for simply asking the questions. No answers are forthcoming. What is the point of having modern-day prophets and apostles if they are too busy building shopping malls to address real concerns and questions of the faithful?

 

[Marie5890]

What is the point of having modern-day prophets and apostles if they are too busy building shopping malls to address real concerns and questions of the faithful?

Indeed. Why bother having prophets if they are failing to address the concerns of the people.

 

[LivingWaters7]

There is no continuity of teaching with their own leaders of 150 years ago, let alone the Early Church of 2000 years ago.

That’s a very good point. It’s interesting to think about how earlier LDS prophets and apostles “knew” certain things, but today, many of those things that they knew and taught (whether in General Conference, in church magazines and manuals, etc) are now disregarded as speculation, or that “we don’t know”.

I’ve long concluded that while the LDS claim of having living apostles and prophets sounds nice in theory (especially to those that don’t realize that in Catholicism, we have the authority of the apostles in our bishops (Acts 1:20) who are their successors, and that inspiration and guidance from Heaven has continued unabated, available to all), their claim to providing stability and clarity to a Christian world in confusion falls flat, when we look at what resulted from Joseph Smith’s restoration.

 

[Marie5890]

That’s a very good point. It’s interesting to think about how earlier LDS prophets and apostles “knew” certain things, but today, many of those things that they knew and taught (whether in General Conference, in church magazines and manuals, etc) are now disregarded as speculation, or that “we don’t know”.

I’ve long concluded that while the LDS claim of having living apostles and prophets sounds nice in theory (especially to those that don’t realize that in Catholicism, we have the authority of the apostles in our bishops (Acts 1:20) who are their successors, and that inspiration and guidance from Heaven has continued unabated, available to all), their claim to providing stability and clarity to a Christian world in confusion falls flat, when we look at what resulted from Joseph Smith’s restoration.

This is well stated, LW, and why and how the idea is appealing. When dealing with a TBM lately, they went back to this concept on several occasions. As I sat back a thought that thru, what I was left wondering was, but what have they done in that capacity? They are sustained “prophets, seers, and revelators”, but really don’t act in that capacity at all.

One is left with a feel good concept that has no foundation in fact to it.
As Eliza Doolittle sang in “My Fair Lady” “words word words, all I hear is words”

 

[TOmNossor]

One of the many issues that many LDS bring up in reference to why someone should become a member of the LDS church is that of having “living apostles and prophets”. Mormons believe that the LDS church is headed by a prophet (just like Moses Noah, Abraham, etc), along with a quorum of twelve apostles. They claim that anciently, the office of apostle was lost, Heaven was closed (God stopped speaking), and Christianity fell into apostasy with the priesthood gone from the world, falling into disarray, with many competing denominations.

But when one actually looks at Joseph Smith’s restoration, we see the same things that LDS apologists often accuse traditional Christianity. For example, the Salt Lake City-based LDS church is only one of a multitude of Joseph Smith-related organizations that sprung up in the last 184 years. See here:

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

Then one can look at teachings of these prophets and apostles. Instead of a purported clarity that comes with following the prophets and apostles, we find confusion. Some LDS prophets have taught that the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood. Some LDS believe this, others reject it. It is said that no one knows where the priesthood/temple ban of blacks came from, yet some LDS prophets and apostles taught that it was due to direct command from the Lord, that it is a doctrine of the church, etc. Some taught that it was due to the conduct of blacks in the pre-mortal existence. LDS also believe that the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother. Some prophets have taught that the Father actually has many wives, in accordance with plural marriage. Such an idea would never be taught today.

So, I fail to see how the LDS restoration brought a stability to Christianity that was apparently lost, according to Mormonism itself. It seems as if the “living prophets and apostles” bring more confusion to the LDS faith itself, and God speaking once again (if we entertain the LDS view on the Heavens being closed prior to the 1800s) resulted in dozens more churches stemming from Joseph Smith.

I think there is room to quibble (and in some cases disagree even) with much of what you call the data to question the stability of LDS Christianity relative to the stability of non-LDS Christianity. I think you could make those arguments from my perspective as well as I could.
That being said, I typically point to Apostles/Prophet to show that this is the method that God used to lead his church in the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, and the the Restoration Covenant.
The folks who you call “successors” to the Apostles are not inspired like Peter, James, John, Paul, … That they honestly claimed to not be inspired in a similar fashion is to their credit, but it IMO creates a disconnect between the way God led his church for 1000’s of years and the way Catholics claim He leads his church now.
I personally find it reasonable that God before Christ’s incarnation, God after Christ’s incarnation and before his Ascension, and God after Christ’s Ascension and before the death of the last Apostle leads the church via INSPIRED individuals and thus He can and will lead his church after the death of the last Apostle via INSPIRED individuals. Other than the ABSENCE of INSPIRATION after the death of the last Apostle, I see no reason there should be an ABSENCE of INSPIRATION. It happened, Catholics claim it happened, and I think it points to a LOSS, an apostasy of authority, something to be restored.

So, anyway, that is how I look to the RESTRATION of Apostles/Prophets.
Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

I think there is room to quibble (and in some cases disagree even) with much of what you call the data to question the stability of LDS Christianity relative to the stability of non-LDS Christianity. I think you could make those arguments from my perspective as well as I could.
That being said, I typically point to Apostles/Prophet to show that this is the method that God used to lead his church in the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, and the the Restoration Covenant.
The folks who you call “successors” to the Apostles are not inspired like Peter, James, John, Paul, … That they honestly claimed to not be inspired in a similar fashion is to their credit, but it IMO creates a disconnect between the way God led his church for 1000’s of years and the way Catholics claim He leads his church now.
I personally find it reasonable that God before Christ’s incarnation, God after Christ’s incarnation and before his Ascension, and God after Christ’s Ascension and before the death of the last Apostle leads the church via INSPIRED individuals and thus He can and will lead his church after the death of the last Apostle via INSPIRED individuals. Other than the ABSENCE of INSPIRATION after the death of the last Apostle, I see no reason there should be an ABSENCE of INSPIRATION. It happened, Catholics claim it happened, and I think it points to a LOSS, an apostasy of authority, something to be restored.

So, anyway, that is how I look to the RESTRATION of Apostles/Prophets.
Charity, TOm

Tom, this thread is about Mormonism, not Catholicism. Therefore, I will quickly address the issue of inspiration (which I believe I have done multiple times with you), and then I would like to stick to the issues I bring up in the OP. If you are not able to, kindly leave the thread.

There is absolutely nowhere that Catholicism claims that after the Apostles, there is an absence of inspiration. Indeed, it is basic Catholic teaching that the Church is headed by Jesus Christ, who is intimately involved in the workings of His Body, and that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, to this day, into all Truth. This is readily apparent throughout the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As I have mentioned in other threads to you, the Catholic belief that “public revelation” (as understood by Catholics and not the definition that LDS impose on it) ended anciently does not mean that we believe that God stopped speaking, or that the Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit, including the Divine protection of our leaders when formally defining dogmas.

With that, again, this thread is not about Catholicism, and I’m not going down that rabbit hole again. Please remain on the topic of the thread, which is Mormonism, not Catholicism. Specifically, how does having “living apostles and prophets” change the situation of pre-Joseph Smith Christianity, when it resulted in many of the same things that many LDS claim occurred due to the supposed lack of “living apostles and prophets”, namely, a multitude of denominations/churches, and the obscuring of doctrine.

 

[TOmNossor]

There is absolutely nowhere that Catholicism claims that after the Apostles, there is an absence of inspiration.

It is a Catholic claim that the Bishops are not inspired like the Apostles.

From Apologist Patrick Madrid (most Catholic scholars acknowledge that to call Peter a “Pope” is anachronistic, but other than this error think Madrid speaks of Catholic teaching in opposition to what you say:

The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Peter. All the other popes who followed Peter and sat in his chair, had to do their teaching the hard way— studying and then learning it first!" (Madrid, pp. 139-140, Pope Fiction).

From Apologist Dave Armstrong (bolding mine):

The grace of conservation is different from the grace of positive Inspiration and Revelation in that no new realities are revealed; but the grace of conservation is equally inerrant in the Church as a whole, since it is a grace, a supernatural gift preserving what was once revealed by positive Inspiration and now repeated substantially in non-inspired words

, sacramental actions, authoritative decisions by the Apostles’ successors and in Scripture communally understood.

Do you disagree with any of these:

The Pope has never received any new revelation.
He is there to safeguard, protect, and clarify the Revelation of Jesus that closed in 100 A.D.
He may receive private revelation, like an apparition, probably to guide him, but none of this is part of the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

I have been unable to align what you claim is Catholic Popes receiving revelation and inspiration with all I have learned about this.
Can you align it?
I have noted a desire to DENY revelation when dialoging with Protestants who are sure Catholicism is changing the deposit of faith and then to claim revelation when dialoguing with Mormon’s who claim that something is missing from Catholicism. But both cannot be true.

I am not trying to make this about the flaws of Catholicism.
You said, Prophets and Apostles are not important because they do not keep the Saints in one body and they do not keep a consistency of belief.
I claimed that whatever truth and falsity existed in your claim, I find Prophets/Apostles important because they lead God’s church in the way God has always lead it. What happened during the Old Testament times when most Christians acknowledge there was no Prophet and what happened after the death of the last Apostle are more similar than different in my mind. What do you think?
Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

Tom, again, do not derail my thread, and respond directly to the thread topic if you are posting . As I mentioned, the matter of the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church is readily apparent from the official teachings of the Church contained within the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in multiple places), and can be squared with the specific type of revelation those apologists are talking about (i.e. public revelation-the Deposit of Faith, which is complete). If you would like to discuss that, feel free to start a separate thread in the appropriate place, and I will gladly participate. Otherwise, you are continuing to derail my thread, and have been reported.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is a Catholic claim that the Bishops are not inspired like the Apostles.

From Apologist Patrick Madrid (most Catholic scholars acknowledge that to call Peter a “Pope” is anachronistic, but other than this error think Madrid speaks of Catholic teaching in opposition to what you say:

From Apologist Dave Armstrong (bolding mine):

Do you disagree with any of these:

I have been unable to align what you claim is Catholic Popes receiving revelation and inspiration with all I have learned about this.
Can you align it?
I have noted a desire to DENY revelation when dialoging with Protestants who are sure Catholicism is changing the deposit of faith and then to claim revelation when dialoguing with Mormon’s who claim that something is missing from Catholicism. But both cannot be true.

I am not trying to make this about the flaws of Catholicism.
You said, Prophets and Apostles are not important because they do not keep the Saints in one body and they do not keep a consistency of belief.
I claimed that whatever truth and falsity existed in your claim, I find Prophets/Apostles important because they lead God’s church in the way God has always lead it. What happened during the Old Testament times when most Christians acknowledge there was no Prophet and what happened after the death of the last Apostle are more similar than different in my mind. What do you think?
Charity, TOm

Jesus Christ is the sea change, and so the New Covenant is not the same as the Old Covenant. In the Old Covenant, God spoke in partial and various ways through prophets. In the New Covenant, God speaks to us through His Word, Jesus Christ.

Mormons are always trying to go backwards.

 

[gazelam]

So, I fail to see how the LDS restoration brought a stability to Christianity that was apparently lost, according to Mormonism itself. It seems as if the “living prophets and apostles” bring more confusion to the LDS faith itself, and God speaking once again (if we entertain the LDS view on the Heavens being closed prior to the 1800s) resulted in dozens more churches stemming from Joseph Smith.

LW7,
In a nutshell, the LDS church claims that authority and doctrine were restored by Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith (which you know.) Perhaps, instead of using the word “stability” you meant to say something more like “true worship”, or something like that.

Stability is not something offered by Mormonism.

Mark 13:13 (KJV) And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Luke 12:51-53 (KJV)
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke 21:20-27 (KJV)

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Alma 60:13 For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God.

I hope this helps.

 

[LivingWaters7]

LW7,
In a nutshell, the LDS church claims that authority and doctrine were restored by Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith (which you know.) Perhaps, instead of using the word “stability” you meant to say something more like “true worship”, or something like that.

Stability is not something offered by Mormonism.

Mark 13:13 (KJV) And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Luke 12:51-53 (KJV)
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke 21:20-27 (KJV)

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Alma 60:13 For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God.

I hope this helps.

Gazelam, by “stability”, I’m referring to the claim by many LDS that without living prophets and apostles, Christianity fell into disarray, with multiple denominations/churches being created, all with competing interpretations of scripture. However, when we examine this claim, we see that even with the restoration through Joseph Smith, with living apostles and prophets again on the earth, even more churches were created, with competing interpretations of scripture, as we see in the various sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. Quite astonishing in the less than 200 year history of Mormonism. So, for me, I don’t find that line of argumentation convincing.

 

[XuDan]

Living Waters,

It is a question I have asked myself many times over the years, and you bring up the point in the original post, of weather of not the conditions for the Apostasy (as presented by the LDS Church) from the RCC are met by the LDS church as well?

• Lack of contemporary prophecy
• Splintering of the “unified body”
• Questionable traditions and dogma

To the second point alone you have the Fundamentalist Church or Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Community of Christ (formerly the Reformed/Reorganized Church of Latter-day Saints. We could liken this to the “Reform” of Luther and the resulting protestant movement, which is widely acknowledges as the “fruit” or evidence of an apostasy and subsequent need for a restoration.

Of these above stated Churches the only one that still adds “prophecy and revelation” to the D&C is the Community of Christ. So the question is, using their own reasoning, is has there been a second apostasy and therefore a second restoration through another line? Is it evidence that a restoration, as claimed, never really happened in the first place?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Living Waters,

It is a question I have asked myself many times over the years, and you bring up the point in the original post, of weather of not the conditions for the Apostasy (as presented by the LDS Church) from the RCC are met by the LDS church as well?

• Lack of contemporary prophecy
• Splintering of the “unified body”
• Questionable traditions and dogma

To the second point alone you have the Fundamentalist Church or Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Community of Christ (formerly the Reformed/Reorganized Church of Latter-day Saints. We could liken this to the “Reform” of Luther and the resulting protestant movement, which is widely acknowledges as the “fruit” or evidence of an apostasy and subsequent need for a restoration.

Of these above stated Churches the only one that still adds “prophecy and revelation” to the D&C is the Community of Christ. So the question is, using their own reasoning, is has there been a second apostasy and therefore a second restoration through another line? Is it evidence that a restoration, as claimed, never really happened in the first place?

Indeed. That is exactly what I am talking about. I don’t see how the living apostles and prophets of the LDS church (ignoring those of the various other Joseph Smith-related churches) have prevented what they claim not having living prophets and apostles caused to happen to the ancient Church.

 

[gazelam]

Gazelam, by “stability”, I’m referring to the claim by many LDS that without living prophets and apostles, Christianity fell into disarray, with multiple denominations/churches being created, all with competing interpretations of scripture. However, when we examine this claim, we see that even with the restoration through Joseph Smith, with living apostles and prophets again on the earth, even more churches were created, with competing interpretations of scripture, as we see in the various sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. Quite astonishing in the less than 200 year history of Mormonism. So, for me, I don’t find that line of argumentation convincing.

I’ll cede the point that even after the LDS Restoration there is still a measure of confusion. Latter-day Saint theology does not claim to be able to prevent the calamities of the Last Days or to prevent individuals from dissenting.

Matthew 24:24 (KJV)* For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.*

Joseph Smith himself said that if the Latter-day Twelve Apostles are ever in disagreement that the church members needed to follow the majority of the Twelve.

I hope this helps.