A living prophet or Dead prophet?

[nicolasconnault]

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, I think that the point we are trying to make is that the importance of a prophet's words is not a dichotomy. There is a degree of relevance/importance of each teaching for each combination of person and circumstances. Most of the time, the words of a living prophet are more important/relevant to us than the words of past prophets, but this doesn't diminish the intrinsic value of past prophets' words. Indeed, the words of living prophets do not exist in a vaccuum, but must necessarily build upon a well-established doctrinal foundation that can only be appreciated and understood through intimate knowledge of the words of dead prophets.

[erichard]

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!

Hi Sky,

There are different types of prophets.

Certain prophets bring forth the "Word of the Lord", and they write it down for future generations. The Bible and Book of Mormon contain records from such prophets. Joseph Smith likewise was a prophet with this gift.

But President Monson today does not bring to us the Word of the Lord in the same manner. We only have discourses that he has made.

So how can we compare him with Joseph or with the Bible prophets with the gift of oracles? He is living, and they are dead, but they are not the same type of prophet.

Are discourses of one ordained to be "the Prophet" of the church guaranteed to be as reliable as Word of the Lord oracles? Is the gift of oracles no longer necessary? Very few seem ready to accept President Young's Adam-God and Seed of Cain discourses that he gave in general conference as the same as scripture.

I can believe that a faithful church member could consider the scriptures a more firm foundation than conference talks. If you do not agree, you should consider reading this article.

Richard

[ElderDarionBevan]

A living prophet is more important than a dead prophet. They recieve current guidance, while not contradicting what a dead prophet said. If you question this read the talk from a prophet himself. visit: http://elderbevan.blogspot.com/2011/01/living-prophet-or-dead-prophet.html

[Mortal Man]

A living prophet is more important than a dead prophet. They recieve current guidance, while not contradicting what a dead prophet said. If you question this read the talk from a prophet himself. visit: http://elderbevan.bl...ad-prophet.html

But President Benson is dead, so I'm not sure if we can believe him.

[Kevin Christensen]

Living or dead prophet is far less important than true or false, and the capacity of the one making the judgment to judge correctly.

http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/prophettestsfv5.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[DH]

A living prophet can obviously give more up-to-date information, BUT... I don't think living prophets can just up and contradict core doctrines, either. The words of the dead prophets are still very relevant, and indeed the living prophets keep telling us to carefully study and heed the words of the dead prophets found in the Scriptures. I don't think it's an EITHER/OR thing.

DH

[stYro]

But President Benson is dead, so I'm not sure if we can believe him.

Bingo.

And, don't Mormons have this thing called "the gift of the Holy Ghost" that should theoretically make debating who out-ranks who (living vs dead prophets, living apostle vs dead prophet, living prophet vs dead Jesus) moot?

Seems to me something other than who got in the last word should be used to settle disputes.

In my opinion, no Mormon prophet has come along who stands in the shoes of Joseph Smith. Not saying they aren't good men, but resorting to "the living prophet outranks the dead ones" is asking people to accept an artificial ranking, an unearned authority. When the Holy Ghost gives his stamp of approval to something, then that specific something has earned authority behind it, and the person who said it has credibility in that area at least... but not until then, no matter what his title may be. Otherwise, why bother to give people the gift of the Holy Ghost, if all they need know is who said it, and are they dead yet? .

stYro

[TheRadMannequin]

I wonder what we expect of a Prophet. Is it all simply based on "the Lord will not let the Prophet lead the people astray?" This is most often interpreted to mean (and ridiculously so) by most members and even some general authorities to mean that whatever the prophet says when he is "speaking as the prophet" is gospel. That is obviously not factually possible since this church is true (which I do believe). For one, what does the statement "speaking as the prophet" even mean? Thats like saying that the President is only responsible for what he says when he "speaks as the president"

No prophet, in the scriptures or otherwise has ever been perfect, and the words we have from the "scriptural" prophets are only the sayings that were put forth as scripture. Are we to think that this is all they said in their lives??? surely not, they mostly certainly spoke to people and preached and like all MEN they probably were off the mark with some things they said and thought, just like our current prophets do. (sorry for the tangent) Might the "lead the PEOPLE (not the person) astray mean the prophet or any other "unhallowed hand" can not destroy the work of the Lord? We as a church need to stop giving anti-mormons amunition by holding our prophets to an impossible and NON DOCTRINAL standard. Obviously one of the major (and favorites of anti-mormons) is the Adam-God theory, which recent Prophets have obviously declared as false doctrine, so there are ONLY TWO OPTIONS available to an honest person. We either abandon our TRADITIONAL thought of infallible prophets or we conclude as anti's do that our church is not true because our prophets HAVE contradicted each other. THAT IS THE REASON WE PRAY!!! to know the truth. Something to think about

[nicolasconnault]

Bingo.

And, don't Mormons have this thing called "the gift of the Holy Ghost" that should theoretically make debating who out-ranks who (living vs dead prophets, living apostle vs dead prophet, living prophet vs dead Jesus) moot?

Seems to me something other than who got in the last word should be used to settle disputes.

In my opinion, no Mormon prophet has come along who stands in the shoes of Joseph Smith. Not saying they aren't good men, but resorting to "the living prophet outranks the dead ones" is asking people to accept an artificial ranking, an unearned authority. When the Holy Ghost gives his stamp of approval to something, then that specific something has earned authority behind it, and the person who said it has credibility in that area at least... but not until then, no matter what his title may be. Otherwise, why bother to give people the gift of the Holy Ghost, if all they need know is who said it, and are they dead yet? .

Not bingo. Where did you get this idea of "ranks"? Have you read the many responses to this thread? Who are you quoting when you write "the living prophet outranks the dead ones"? What we are saying is that the revealed word of God to his prophets is most relevant and applicable to the prophet's contemporaries, and less so to future generations. However, this doesn't mean that the words aren't important, and it certainly doesn't place prophets in any sort of hierarchy.

It is not the prophets themselves that are more or less "important", but their words in relation to our day-to-day circumstances. Obviously this is not an absolute rule, since we consider the words of Christ given 2000 years ago to be of the utmost importance to us.

[zerinus]

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.

In the days of Christ, there were those who rejected the ministry of Christ in favor of their supposed adherence to Moses and the old prophets:

John 9

:

28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.

29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

There are such people today. What LDS mean by saying that the living prophet is more important than the dead ones is that if you reject the ministry of living or contemporary prophets in favor of adhering (supposedly) to the old ones, as the Pharisees did in the time of Christ, will not save you.

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.

That has been the

[stYro]

Not bingo. Where did you get this idea of "ranks"? Have you read the many responses to this thread? Who are you quoting when you write "the living prophet outranks the dead ones"? What we are saying is that the revealed word of God to his prophets is most relevant and applicable to the prophet's contemporaries, and less so to future generations. However, this doesn't mean that the words aren't important, and it certainly doesn't place prophets in any sort of hierarchy.

It is not the prophets themselves that are more or less "important", but their words in relation to our day-to-day circumstances. Obviously this is not an absolute rule, since we consider the words of Christ given 2000 years ago to be of the utmost importance to us.

Let's take a subject on which there is disagreement between Joseph Smith and those who came after him. Word of wisdom, blacks & the priesthood, women holding priesthood, whatever. Rather than investigating whose position is right and true, the church teaches the overly simplistic approach of looking at who died first.

My position is, use your Gift of the Holy Ghost and ask God! That's what it's for!!

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation..." - Brigham Young

[nicolasconnault]

the church teaches the overly simplistic approach of looking at who died first.

CFR please.

[stYro]

CFR please.

What does CFR mean?

[TAO]

What does CFR mean?

It means call for reference. You must provide a link - except in this case, I can tell that Nick wants more than a link - he wants you to prove your statement.

[sunstoned]

Hi Sky,

There are different types of prophets.

Certain prophets bring forth the "Word of the Lord", and they write it down for future generations. The Bible and Book of Mormon contain records from such prophets. Joseph Smith likewise was a prophet with this gift.

But President Monson today does not bring to us the Word of the Lord in the same manner. We only have discourses that he has made.

So how can we compare him with Joseph or with the Bible prophets with the gift of oracles? He is living, and they are dead, but they are not the same type of prophet.

Are discourses of one ordained to be "the Prophet" of the church guaranteed to be as reliable as Word of the Lord oracles? Is the gift of oracles no longer necessary? Very few seem ready to accept President Young's Adam-God and Seed of Cain discourses that he gave in general conference as the same as scripture.

I can believe that a faithful church member could consider the scriptures a more firm foundation than conference talks. If you do not agree, you should consider reading this article.

Richard

I agree. IMO there is not one conference talk that is in ball part as real Biblical scripture.

[stYro]

It means call for reference. You must provide a link - except in this case, I can tell that Nick wants more than a link - he wants you to prove your statement.

Really?

"Must"??

What happens if I don't?

I'd really rather not waste my time digging up a link that proves the LDS churches teaches its members to follow the living prophet over the dead one. I was an active Mormon for twenty-something years and that's what I was taught, and in turn that's what I taught.

Rather than squabble over whether or not I can document that, I'd like to see Nick take a shot at the real meat of my post: My calling for Mormons to use their Gift of the Holy Ghost in their search for truth when they have conflicting statements from prophets, instead of resorting to a legalistic examination of who said what when.

stYro

[sunstoned]

A living prophet is more important than a dead prophet. They recieve current guidance, while not contradicting what a dead prophet said. If you question this read the talk from a prophet himself. visit: http://elderbevan.blogspot.com/2011/01/living-prophet-or-dead-prophet.html

This link is about a church leader saying that you should follow church leaders? That is like the Jews saying they are the chosen people because the book they wrote about themselves says so. Self promotion is not evidence. What guidance has been given modern conference talks that cannot be found in the Bible?

[nicolasconnault]

Really?

"Must"??

What happens if I don't?

stYro

stYro, when you joined this message board you agreed to its terms of use. These terms require you to provide a reference to back up your assertions if someone else asks you to. Your assertion is:

the church teaches the overly simplistic approach of looking at who died first.

I think this is an inaccurate assertion, so I ask you to provide a reference to back it up. If you refuse, you are in violation of the terms of use and I am entitled to notify the moderators, who will then take whatever action they feel is required.

[stYro]

stYro, when you joined this message board you agreed to its terms of use. These terms require you to provide a reference to back up your assertions if someone else asks you to. Your assertion is:

I think this is an inaccurate assertion, so I ask you to provide a reference to back it up. If you refuse, you are in violation of the terms of use and I am entitled to notify the moderators, who will then take whatever action they feel is required.

You would really go running to the moderators, obviously in hopes of having me banned or disciplined or something, because I made a tangential statement you disagree with and don't have documentation that meets your approval? Thanks, buddy.

First of all, I don't think it's an innaccurate assertion.

Edit: No links with temple content Scroll down to the third point:

"The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.... the living prophets always take precedence."

After that, it's just logical deduction: If Joseph Smith taught that mild drinks are okay, and Heber J. Grant taught that they are not, and both men are dead, until someone over-rules the more recently deceased Heber J. Grant, mild drinks are taboo. I can quote section 89 to you, but it's been effectively amended by a later prophet (who is also dead), and obviously until that is over-ruled or modified by another prophet, it still stands as current doctrine.

Two can play this game:

Indeed, the words of living prophets do not exist in a vaccuum, but must necessarily build upon a well-established doctrinal foundation that can only be appreciated and understood through intimate knowledge of the words of dead prophets.

I wonder if you have a reference for that........ hmmm?

Just kidding, I'm not going to waste your time by CFRing you. That would be rude of me.

Now back to the point I was trying to make earlier: Instead of resorting to a legalistic flowchart approach of who died when, to resolve discrepancies between the words of two different prophets, why not rely on the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

edit: In retrospect, instead of saying "the church teaches the overly simplistic approach of looking at who died first", I should have said "the church uses the overly simplistic approach of looking at who died first.". To the best of my knowledge, it's not overtly taught.

second edit: I don't remember the CFR rules you're claiming from when I signed up, and so I looked for them in the Board Guidelines. I don't see them there either. Where would I find them?

stYro

[nicolasconnault]

You would really go running to the moderators, obviously in hopes of having me banned or disciplined or something, because I made a tangential statement you disagree with and don't have documentation that meets your approval? Thanks, buddy.

My call for references was perfectly legitimate, you agreed to the same rules as I did when you joined this board. Likewise I will respect any legitimate CFR you make.

First of all, I don't think it's an innaccurate assertion.

"http://www.lds-mormo.../fourteen.shtml" Scroll down to the third point:

"The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.... the living prophets always take precedence."

This doesn't support your assertion about the order of death.

After that, it's just logical deduction: If Joseph Smith taught that mild drinks are okay, and Heber J. Grant taught that they are not, and both men are dead, until someone over-rules the more recently deceased Heber J. Grant, mild drinks are taboo. I can quote section 89 to you, but it's been effectively amended by a later prophet (who is also dead), and obviously until that is over-ruled or modified by another prophet, it still stands as current doctrine.

Your deduction is fair enough. However, it's still the current living prophet that matters, and every single prophet since President Grant has repeated the commandment of the Word of Wisdom. Therefore your example doesn't justify the teaching that the order of death matters. What matters in this example is what the living prophet says. Do you have other examples?

Just kidding, I'm not going to waste your time by CFRing you. That would be rude of me.

You'd be the only one finding it rude. It's standard practice on this board.

Now back to the point I was trying to make earlier: Instead of resorting to a legalistic flowchart approach of who died when, to resolve discrepancies between the words of two different prophets, why not rely on the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

We are all encouraged to rely on the gift of the Holy Ghost to give us a confirmation that the words of the living prophets are from God. I can provide references to support that.

Again, do you have other examples of such discrepancies?

[stYro]

Nicolas, my answer had two parts, and I should have made that clear. The link was the background for the deductive argument.

As for discrepancies between prophets wherein the position of the most recently-deceased prophet to have addressed the issue is the standing doctrine unless and until it is overturned, we have blacks & the priesthood.

I'm glad to hear you say that asking the Holy Ghost for confirmation of the words of the prophets is encouraged. I was taught the exact opposite when I was a youth in the church; I was specifically taught that we were NOT supposed to pray about something the prophet says. I remember it vividly, because it was the only question I missed on that seminary exam.

stYro

[nicolasconnault]

Nicolas, my answer had two parts, and I should have made that clear. The link was the background for the deductive argument.

As for discrepancies between prophets wherein the position of the most recently-deceased prophet to have addressed the issue is the standing doctrine unless and until it is overturned, we have blacks & the priesthood.

I'm glad to hear you say that asking the Holy Ghost for confirmation of the words of the prophets is encouraged. I was taught the exact opposite when I was a youth in the church; I was specifically taught that we were NOT supposed to pray about something the prophet says. I remember it vividly, because it was the only question I missed on that seminary exam.

That's unfortunate. I have been in the Church for 32 years (BIC), went through all the programs, and have never been taught this fallacy. This shows that we shouldn't rely on what we've been taught as a valid indication of what is LDS doctrine. For example I've been taught repeatedly by my teachers and parents that the theory of evolution was false, and even that it was of the devil. I have only realised a few years ago that this view is not LDS doctrine.

[Deborah]

As for discrepancies between prophets wherein the position of the most recently-deceased prophet to have addressed the issue is the standing doctrine unless and until it is overturned, we have blacks & the priesthood.

You need to understand the difference between doctrine, practice and policy. Doctrine doesn't change. The doctrine in this case is that God decides who gets the Priesthood and when. Throughout history (read the OT) only certain people had the Priesthood. This is the practice or policy, which has changed depending on the times and the people.

Your view of prophets is simplistic and based on a false idea of what doctrine is.

[Hestia]

Per board guidelines behavior that won

[stYro]

Per board guidelines behavior that won