A living prophet or Dead prophet?

[ElderDarionBevan]

which one is more important to us, a living prophet or dead prophet? I would love to hear everyones answers to this question.

You can visit this website to learn more about this subject, and read an apostles response from a recent general conference. Just click on the link http://elderbevan.blogspot.com/2011/01/living-prophet-or-dead-prophet.html

[Rob Bowman]

Darion,

The only reason to argue that a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet is if one has a problem with something the dead prophet said.

In the Bible, you won't find Isaiah suggesting that the living prophet of his day (who just coincidentally happened to be Isaiah) was more important than that "dead prophet" named Moses. Nor will you find John the Baptist claiming that a living prophet in his time was worth two dead prophets of the past.

The real issue is not whether a prophet is dead or alive, but whether his words were true or false. I'll take a dead true prophet over a living false prophet any day.

which one is more important to us, a living prophet or dead prophet? I would love to hear everyones answers to this question.

You can visit this website to learn more about this subject, and read an apostles response from a recent general conference. Just click on the link http://elderbevan.bl...ad-prophet.html

[Thunderfire]

I wonder why one must be more important than another?

[nicolasconnault]

I wonder why one must be more important than another?

I think that the OP means that the words of a living prophet are more important to his contemporaries than the words of past prophets. That is a perfectly logical position to take.

[Thunderfire]

I think that the OP means that the words of a living prophet are more important to his contemporaries than the words of past prophets. That is a perfectly logical position to take.

Thank you for the response and I can appreciate that "logical position". From my experience, many of the ancient prophecies though were given for our day. So we can see how a living prophet may give further enlightenment and further instructions. But if the message is from God it will not contridict what was previously given, rather build on it.

[nicolasconnault]

Thank you for the response and I can appreciate that "logical position". From my experience, many of the ancient prophecies though were given for our day. So we can see how a living prophet may give further enlightenment and further instructions. But if the message is from God it will not contridict what was previously given, rather build on it.

Yes I agree with that. It can also re-interpret it accurately so that it is easier to apply to contemporary circumstances.

[Deborah]

I think the point of heeding the words of the "living" prophet is that times change, people change and needs change. It's not that we ignore the words of the dead prophets, but that what they said may have applied to that time and that place and because a people repented or did not repent such counsel also changes. Every prophecy is contingent on the righteousness of the people to whom it referred. Jonah was sent to warn the people of Nineveh of their imminent destruction; he was the last to expect that they would repent and destruction did not come.

Many of our prior latter-day prophets spoke about Communism and the dangers in the world during the Cold War. The Cold War ended, much to everyone's surprise and many of the warnings that a lot of people like to still talk about simply are not relevant today. We have a different set of evils to combat and our warnings are of a different nature.

[ELF1024]

which one is more important to us, a living prophet or dead prophet? I would love to hear everyones answers to this question.

You can visit this website to learn more about this subject, and read an apostles response from a recent general conference. Just click on the link http://elderbevan.bl...ad-prophet.html

Why do I get the feeling that there is a huge poker game going on in heaven....

I'll see your Jonah, and raise you a Moses....

[russianwolfe]

Darion,

The only reason to argue that a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet is if one has a problem with something the dead prophet said.

In the Bible, you won't find Isaiah suggesting that the living prophet of his day (who just coincidentally happened to be Isaiah) was more important than that "dead prophet" named Moses. Nor will you find John the Baptist claiming that a living prophet in his time was worth two dead prophets of the past.

The real issue is not whether a prophet is dead or alive, but whether his words were true or false. I'll take a dead true prophet over a living false prophet any day.

Really? So in the days of Jeremiah, was it more important to remember what Moses said or to follow what Jeremiah was saying? In the days of Noah, was it more important to read the words of Adam, or follow what Noah was saying? If you followed the dead prophets in either case, you would have died. But if you would have followed the living prophet, you would have lived. Today is no different. The living prophets speak to us in our day for our edification. What the dead prophets said in their day was good for those dead people. But current living prophets tell us what God would have us know and do today.

Marvin

[russianwolfe]

Yes I agree with that. It can also re-interpret it accurately so that it is easier to apply to contemporary circumstances.

Don't forget that the Pharisees and Sadducees had the prophets and their understanding. Christ came along and literally showed them what the prophecies really meant. But they relied on the dead prophets and their understanding rather than the living Word of God. Dead prophets are good for learning how God has acted in the past. But living prophets tell us what God expects of us today. And it might even contradict our understanding of the dead prophets. Don't forget that circumcision was said to be an eternal principle but Peter had no problem ending it.

Marvin

[thesometimesaint]

russianwolfe:

Pass the Ham and Swiss on Rye sandwiches please.

[Rob Bowman]

Marvin,

In the days of Jeremiah, the all-important question was not whether one would follow living prophets or not, but which ones. There were plenty--and most of them disagreed with Jeremiah. If you followed those "living prophets," you would die, along with them.

The message of Jeremiah was true because it agreed with what God had already revealed, particular in the Law of Moses; and in fact Jeremiah's message was that Jerusalem was going to be conquered and its people chastised because they had broken God's law and ignored his word (e.g., Jer. 6:19; 9:13; 16:11; 32:23; 44:10, 23). Jeremiah did not pit present prophets against past prophets, but said that judgment was coming because the people kept rejecting the same law and rejecting one prophet after another (Jer. 26:4-6). What dead, true prophets of God said in the past is God's word; any true prophets living today must agree with the truth that those "dead prophets" revealed.

Really? So in the days of Jeremiah, was it more important to remember what Moses said or to follow what Jeremiah was saying? In the days of Noah, was it more important to read the words of Adam, or follow what Noah was saying? If you followed the dead prophets in either case, you would have died. But if you would have followed the living prophet, you would have lived. Today is no different. The living prophets speak to us in our day for our edification. What the dead prophets said in their day was good for those dead people. But current living prophets tell us what God would have us know and do today.

Marvin

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

You are merely making assertions. Listening to dead prophets will not save me if I don't do what the living ones tell me.

[TheRadMannequin]

Rob Bowman you are correct. sometime you sound as if you're fending off an attack that never came

[Deborah]

The message of Jeremiah was true because it agreed with what God had already revealed, particular in the Law of Moses;

So you are saying we should be living the law of Moses today?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman you are correct. sometime you sound as if you're fending off an attack that never came

THat was deep

[TheRadMannequin]

that is not what he was saying, (i dont think) he was just saying that utilizing that prophet as an example was not valid in the discussion because it wasnt a question of his words VS an earlier prophets words, they were the same.

[paulpatter]

'Rob Bowman' timestamp='1296154042' post='1208967997'

: , , , ,The only reason to argue that a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet is if one has a problem with something the dead prophet said.

"The only reason"? I respectfully disagree. The world isn't a static place; consequently, the ability to change is pivotal for survival--for organizations and individuals. A living prophet facilitates that change. Some of the things Brigham Young advocated from the pulpit (portions of which are recorded in the Journal of Discourses) would make the Church's 21st century, worldwide missionary program virtually null and void. And how many of today's Saints would be willing to wear the garments that were mandated in BY's day? (A relatively minor matter, but illustrative of change--little and big.)

In truth, the question you pose can be answered only in the context of time. Brigham Young was important in his day, and President Monsen is important in our day.

" The real issue is not whether a prophet is dead or alive, but whether his words were true or false. I'll take a dead true prophet over a living false prophet any day.

Well, yes, obviously, if the living prophet is false.

[russianwolfe]

Marvin,

In the days of Jeremiah, the all-important question was not whether one would follow living prophets or not, but which ones. There were plenty--and most of them disagreed with Jeremiah. If you followed those "living prophets," you would die, along with them.

Now you are avoiding my point. I only referenced Jeremiah, you brought in the other prophets(?). My point was that the living prophet Jeremiah was the one to follow not the other prophets that you brought in.

The message of Jeremiah was true because it agreed with what God had already revealed, particular in the Law of Moses; and in fact Jeremiah's message was that Jerusalem was going to be conquered and its people chastised because they had broken God's law and ignored his word (e.g., Jer. 6:19; 9:13; 16:11; 32:23; 44:10, 23).

But these other prophets(?) that you have brought in were also good Jews and followed the Law of Moses. How could a contemporary Jew tell who was the true prophet and who was the false prophet?

Jeremiah did not pit present prophets against past prophets, but said that judgment was coming because the people kept rejecting the same law and rejecting one prophet after another (Jer. 26:4-6).

No Jeremiah did not pit living prophets against dead prophet. You did that by your statements.

What dead, true prophets of God said in the past is God's word; any true prophets living today must agree with the truth that those "dead prophets" revealed.

And you have avoided my point about Peter voiding the necessity to follow the Law of Circumcision and my point about the Pharisess and their worship of the dead prophets. Can you answer these?

Marvin

[LeSellers]

that is not what he was saying, (i dont think) he was just saying that utilizing that prophet as an example was not valid in the discussion because it wasnt a question of his words VS an earlier prophets words, they were the same.

Please use the "Reply" button when you respond to a message. I can't figure out what you're talking about.

Lehi

[TheRadMannequin]

Please use the "Reply" button when you respond to a message. I can't figure out what you're talking about.

Lehi

sorry, please forgive the newbie

[Sky]

which one is more important to us, a living prophet or dead prophet? I would love to hear everyones answers to this question.

You can visit this website to learn more about this subject, and read an apostles response from a recent general conference. Just click on the link http://elderbevan.blogspot.com/2011/01/living-prophet-or-dead-prophet.html

A living, true prophet is more important to us - no question about it. But that doesn't mean that we don't learn from and heed the words of "dead prophets." After all, the scriptures that we cherish are the words of prophets from the past. It's great to have both!

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You asked:

So you are saying we should be living the law of Moses today?

Thanks for asking this important question. The answer is No. Christians are not under the Mosaic covenant, so we do not need to practice circumcision, offer animal sacrifices, keep the Jewish feasts, and so forth. But what the Law of Moses taught is still true. Its theology is still true, its prophetic revelations are still true, and its moral teachings are still true. Even Jesus, who was of course far more than a prophet, never claimed that his teaching called anything Moses taught into question -- and indeed Jesus denied doing any such thing (Matt. 5:17-18). He claimed, quite to the contrary, that anyone who believed Moses should believe him (John 5:46-47).

[Rob Bowman]

Paul,

You wrote:

"The only reason"? I respectfully disagree. The world isn't a static place; consequently, the ability to change is pivotal for survival--for organizations and individuals. A living prophet facilitates that change. Some of the things Brigham Young advocated from the pulpit (portions of which are recorded in the Journal of Discourses) would make the Church's 21st century, worldwide missionary program virtually null and void. And how many of today's Saints would be willing to wear the garments that were mandated in BY's day? (A relatively minor matter, but illustrative of change--little and big.)

I'm not opposed to change. Christians can and should do a lot of things differently than they did a century ago or two millennia ago. I'm simply saying that the LDS claim that living prophets are more important than dead ones reflects the fact that the LDS Church today has a different theology than its own dead prophets, not to mention the dead prophets of the Bible.

Regarding my point that it would be far better to follow a dead true prophet than a living false prophet, you replied:

Well, yes, obviously, if the living prophet is false.

Thank you. That is my main point. I realize we disagree about whether the living prophet of the LDS Church is a true prophet, but at least we agree on this principle.

[Deborah]

Thanks for asking this important question. The answer is No. Christians are not under the Mosaic covenant, so we do not need to practice circumcision, offer animal sacrifices, keep the Jewish feasts, and so forth. But what the Law of Moses taught is still true. Its theology is still true, its prophetic revelations are still true, and its moral teachings are still true.

Thank you for supporting what we have been saying. We heed the doctrinal teachings of the prophets, but practices change or how we fulfill the doctrine changes, which is why we need a living prophet to give direction for our time in fulfilling the covenants and heeding the doctrine that is unchanging.