He didn't get it (granted, I probably expressed myself more eloquently here than I did to him). But what's the rationale behind the policy, he kept asking. And I kept responding (in one way or another) that revelation is the rationale. It must have been difficult for him to understand my willingness to defer so completely to someone I consider to be a prophet. And I can understand his confusion.
Western society has been borne out of and fed on the John Lockeish like philosophy that our authority figures are accountable to us and can't tell us what to do unless we let them. One of the arrangements foundational to the British/American form of governance is that the nation's authority figures must be able to articulate a good reason to make the law, or the law has no force or meaning. So when I tell my lawyer friend that I am willing to recognize another human being as a prophet, and do what he tells me to even if he doesn't give a reason for me to do it, my friend just doesn't follow. And he probably starts imagining something along the lines of David Koresh or Jim Jones.
But from a (Abrahamic) theological perspective, deferring to and following a prophet is as old as God's relationship with the human race. That's how He does stuff: He chooses and authorizes a prophet and then, through the prophet, tells people what He wants them to do. The only reason the writings in the Bible are considered authoritative is because, presumably, one of God's authorized representatives wrote them. The source of tension in virtually all Biblical stories is the extent to which a person or group is willing to obey a prophet (that is, obey God). In my opinion, believers who read the Bible should be wondering the same thing as Roger Williams (a prominent theologian) did in the 17th century: where is God's prophet? The following quotes are attributed to Williams:
The apostasy has so far corrupted all...that there can be no recovery out of the apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew.
There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking.
I'm not even close to being a Roger Williams historian (more like an expert Wiki-browser), but it seems like a person who makes these kinds of observations is the kind of person who has read the Bible and recognizes the basic truth that prophet-authorizing is the method God uses to guide His church.
The LDS Church's claim to be led by a duly authorized prophet is what distinguishes it from every other church or organization. If the Church's members consider the prophet to be less like Moses and more like the leaders of other churches or religious bodies, then the members stop belonging to the LDS Church and become members of an ordinary church. And to the extent the Church's members consider the prophet to be less like Moses and more like their local legislator, the more the Church becomes just another civic organization.
It can be difficult for people who are not members of the Church to understand members' willingness to follow a prophet - especially when the prophet's teachings are unpopular or their basis is not clear. But for me, this is the most basic kind of faith. I believe God authorized the prophet, I recognize that prophet-authorizing is the way main way God tells me what He wants me to do, so I follow the prophet. When it doesn't make sense to me, I remember what Isaiah (a prophet!) said in Isaiah 55:8-9, quoting God:
For your thoughts are not my thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
