A living prophet or Dead prophet?

[consiglieri]

which one is more important to us, a living prophet or dead prophet?

In the LDS Church, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish which is which . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

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

I have no issue with letting the Holy Spirit being the final arbiter in such cases. The problem is that there are some that don't. Take the case of polygamy for example, which you had mentioned. Joseph Smith instituted polygamy, and Wilford Woodruff abandoned it. What did the majority of the Mormons do? They recognized that his decision was correct for that time, and accepted it. Then there were a small minority who didn't. They said that Wilford Woodruff was a fallen prophet because he had contradicted Joseph Smith, and went their own way. They didn't say that the Holy Spirit had taught them to do it. They did it on the grounds that Wilford Woodruff had contradicted Joseph Smith. If they had followed the prompting of the Spirit, they would have followed along with the rest of the Church members, whose course of action has been vindicated over the years since then. Following the Spirit is not an issue here. The issue is whether it is justified to reject the teachings of a contemporary prophet purely on the grounds that it contradicts (or appears to contradict) the teachings of an earlier prophet. Nobody argues that one shouldn't follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

[nicolasconnault]

I have no issue with letting the Holy Spirit being the final arbiter in such cases. The problem is that there are some that don't. Take the case of polygamy for example, which you had mentioned. Joseph Smith instituted polygamy, and Wilford Woodruff abandoned it. What did the majority of the Mormons do? They recognized that his decision was correct for that time, and accepted it. Then there were a small minority who didn't. They said that Wilford Woodruff was a fallen prophet because he had contradicted Joseph Smith, and went their own way. They didn't say that the Holy Spirit had taught them to do it. They did it on the grounds that Wilford Woodruff had contradicted Joseph Smith. If they had followed the prompting of the Spirit, they would have followed along with the rest of the Church members, whose course of action has been vindicated over the years since then. Following the Spirit is not an issue here. The issue is whether it is justified to reject the teachings of a contemporary prophet purely on the grounds that it contradicts (or appears to contradict) the teachings of an earlier prophet. Nobody argues that one shouldn't follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

It think this is an oversimplification of what happened. From what I've read, most of the Saints who continued practicing plural marriage truly believed they were doing the right thing, that it was required for exaltation, and that the messages given by Wilford Woodruff were "coded" or "veiled" instructions meant to pacify the public while instructing the Saints to continue the practice "underground". See this article for an in-depth treatment of the subject.

[zerinus]

It think this is an oversimplification of what happened. From what I've read, most of the Saints who continued practicing plural marriage truly believed they were doing the right thing, that it was required for exaltation, and that the messages given by Wilford Woodruff were "coded" or "veiled" instructions meant to pacify the public while instructing the Saints to continue the practice "underground". See this article for an in-depth treatment of the subject.

I don't agree. Once Wilford Woodruff made a categorical assertion that polygamy was to be discontinued, and the matter was put to the vote at General Conference, and unanimously voted on in the affirmative, Latter-day Saints knew what was expected of them to do. There may have been a small minority who still had lingering hope that things might turn out different, but the message was made clear enough for everyone to understand.

[nicolasconnault]

I don't agree. Once Wilford Woodruff made a categorical assertion that polygamy was to be discontinued, and the matter was put to the vote at General Conference, and unanimously voted on in the affirmative, Latter-day Saints knew what was expected of them to do. There may have been a small minority who still had lingering hope that things might turn out different, but the message was made clear enough for everyone to understand.

It's fine if you don't agree, but please read the article I linked to, it is built upon what I consider to be sound scholarship, not just hearsay. The author of the PhD has studied many letters and documents that led him to his conclusions. For one thing, the practice of polygamy after the manifesto was apparently not limited to a small minority, but was more largely practiced, although under secrecy for fear of oppression. We can probably start a separate thread about this, although it has already been discussed on this board.

[zerinus]

It's fine if you don't agree, but please read the article I linked to, it is built upon what I consider to be sound scholarship, not just hearsay. The author of the PhD has studied many letters and documents that led him to his conclusions. For one thing, the practice of polygamy after the manifesto was apparently not limited to a small minority, but was more largely practiced, although under secrecy for fear of oppression. We can probably start a separate thread about this, although it has already been discussed on this board.

Even assuming that what you are saying is true, or has an element of truth, it is not really relevant to the point I am trying to make. My point was that relying on the Holy Ghost is not an issue here, as stYro had argued, because those who splintered off over the polygamy issue did not claim to do so on the grounds of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but on the grounds that Wilford Woodruff had strayed because he had gone contrary to what the former prophets had established. That point remains valid, regardless of whether what you are saying is true or not.

[nicolasconnault]

Even assuming that what you are saying is true, or has an element of truth, it is not really relevant to the point I am trying to make. My point was that relying on the Holy Ghost is not an issue here, as stYro had argued, because those who splintered off over the polygamy issue did not claim to do so on the grounds of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but on the grounds that Wilford Woodruff had strayed because he had gone contrary to what the former prophets had established. That point remains valid, regardless of whether what you are saying is true or not.

I beg to differ. Your argument is that the saints continued polygamy because they perceived Wilford Woodruff as a "fallen prophet", and rejected the manifesto. I refuted this by giving you the link to an article that gives a different reason why they continued the practice: they believed the manifesto was directed at the enemies of the Church and was designed to help them continue the practice in secret.

I don't think you have taken the time to read any of this article. I know it is very long, but at least please read the first and second parts, I believe you will learn a lot from it. I was going to paste sections from it here, but you would miss the rationale that leads to these quotes. I hasten to add that this article is not written by an anti-mormon.

[zerinus]

I beg to differ. Your argument is that the saints continued polygamy because they perceived Wilford Woodruff as a "fallen prophet", and rejected the manifesto. I refuted this by giving you the link to an article that gives a different reason why they continued the practice: they believed the manifesto was directed at the enemies of the Church and was designed to help them continue the practice in secret.

I don't think you have taken the time to read any of this article. I know it is very long, but at least please read the first and second parts, I believe you will learn a lot from it. I was going to paste sections from it here, but you would miss the rationale that leads to these quotes. I hasten to add that this article is not written by an anti-mormon.

Your point is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make to stYro.

[Questing Beast]

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

The question to any TBM is a no-brainer: the doctrine is that we follow the living oracles before the dead ones.

BUT, in order for either to have any validity, one has to accept that there is such a thing as a prophet: by that I mean to say individuals who are called by "God" to call people to specific repentance as "The Chosen". This concept has always held problematical connotations for me: because we are all so manifestly different, it makes no sense to me that everyone is supposed to line up in front of one dogmatic "gate" into heaven. I don't believe in prophets for the entire world; unless the entire world was one religion. Ah! you say, it is supposed to be, and will be someday. But the problematical aspect of that is: ANY religion can make the exact same claim. And the real life problem with that one is: any religion in history (even contemporary history in the making) pushing its way around making converts to "the one true faith" runs smack into resistance, i.e. violence ensues and "holy war" becomes justified by the "one true faith". Read it: the scenario is always the same. And I won't go "there" with it.

So, no dead or living prophets, period. A "prophet" for the Mormons, that's okay. Muslims have their prophet for them. Jews are waiting for the Messiah for themselves. RCs have the Vicar of Christ for them. If the FLDS are satisfied with their "prophets", fine with me; as long as they don't go around stealing women for them or blowing the doors off LDS chapels, etc.

And the vast, three-quarters of the earth's inhabitants who don't want to adhere to any dogma in particular? FINE and dandy! They don't even need a prophet in the first place. The only dictum that works for everyone stuck on this same speck of mud is and has always been: "Live and let live". It cannot be repeated too many times. Keep YOUR prophets to yourselves, and we'll all get along just fine....

[nicolasconnault]

Your point is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make to stYro.

Please demonstrate how.

[thesometimesaint]

Questing Beast:

There are less than 7 Billions of people in the world with over 1 Billion Roman Catholics, about another 1 Billion other Christians, over a Billion Muslims, about a Billion Hindu, add in over 1 Billion various oriental religion practitioners. I don't see where you get "And the vast, three-quarters of the earth's inhabitants who don't want to adhere to any dogma in particular".

[zerinus]

Please demonstrate how.

Ask stYro. He understood, that is why he gave no further replies. My post was addressed to him, not to you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Keep YOUR prophets to yourselves, and we'll all get along just fine....

And there you have it. QB just hates our missionary program. Bummer, I don't see it stopping any time soon.

[nicolasconnault]

Ask stYro. He understood, that is why he gave no further replies. My post was addressed to him, not to you.

Maybe he gave no further replies because he agrees with me... Gee don't you love rhetorics?

[Ron Beron]

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.

The supposition is not whether a living prophet today, ostensibly LDS, is false or not, but whether any prophet long gone loses his veracity in light of modern prophecy. The real question is whether the role of the prophet is to lead the people back to the Lord. It was true in Moses, Isaiah's, John's or Pres. Monson's day: Lead the people to God.

[stYro]

Maybe he gave no further replies because he agrees with me... Gee don't you love rhetorics?

Actually I do agree with you, but I'm hesitant now to make statements that I'm not prepared to back up with references.

Thanks for the link to the correlation article. I'm not very far into it yet, but it is throwing a great deal of light on topics that I only had a superficial appreciation for.

[Sky]

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 read over the article that you linked to, and the information contained in it strikes me as questionable at best. I wholeheartedly and without question sustain the President of the Church

[nicolasconnault]

Actually I do agree with you, but I'm hesitant now to make statements that I'm not prepared to back up with references.

Thanks for the link to the correlation article. I'm not very far into it yet, but it is throwing a great deal of light on topics that I only had a superficial appreciation for.

Thanks, I appreciate your candour, it is a very valuable asset on this message board! I hope you enjoy the article, I need to finish reading it myself, I got a bit side-tracked. I'm up to part 5 or 6.

[erichard]

I read over the article that you linked to, and the information contained in it strikes me as questionable at best. I wholeheartedly and without question sustain the President of the Church

[thesometimesaint]

erichard:

Not sustaining whomever is the currant Prophet and President of the Church would be problematic for any member of the Church.

4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

[erichard]

erichard:

Not sustaining whomever is the currant Prophet and President of the Church would be problematic for any member of the Church.

4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

I agree.

But what is the most problematic is the the church authorities have placed themselves above possible controversy-- and yet the D&C law does not support that position.

It appears that the Lord is trying the Saints in "all things" as He said he would through the Prophet Brigham Young. (D&C 136:31)

Richard

[thesometimesaint]

erichard:

I believe there is a difference between sustaining some one and agreeing with everything they say. We are all entitled to our own opinions, likes, dislikes, and whatnot. Our leaders are not infallible and TTBOMK none has ever claimed such. But I believe they are good and wise men who on occasion do speak as the Lord has directed.

[nicolasconnault]

Hi,

I should note that: I do not say that you and other members should not have the right to sustain President Monson. You definitely have that right-- and should have that right.

Even if you are wrong in your choice before the Lord, I still believe you have the legitimate right to make that choice, or you would not be asked to sustain or not sustain him-- and thus given that as a choice.

But do you reciprocate?

Do you agree that another member of the church should have the legitimate right to NOT sustain President Monson? And the right to not reject the evidences for that decision? And the right to seek to settle the controversy even by a trial if necessary before sustaining him?

Or should those who have a controversy over President Monson and choose to NOT sustain him simply be excommunicated if they talk to others about the evidences for their decision?

I did look at the links you gave. I honestly believe the D&C law does NOT place the President of the church above possible controversy, and thus not above failing the church. Why did the Lord put D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48 in His word if, as the link you gave says:

"Our greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the Church."

Members covenant to live the "law of the Gospel" as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants. They do NOT covenant to live by everything online at LDS.org. Right? And in fact they do not covenant to live by everything taught by the church President in General Conference.

I wholeheartedly, by the way, agree that we should strictly follow the "Word of the Lord" given to any true living prophet. But is everything the church President says the same thing as the "Word of the Lord"?

Do you believe that the Adam-God and Seed of Cain teachings of church President Young are as good as the Word of the Lord?

I hope you do not think I am being unfair in saying these things, or disrespectful of the church authorities. I am very sincere and have prayed a lot about this matter. I have a testimony that the D&C laws are critical for the church to live, even if they are a burden.

Richard

You raise some good points, yet I find it funny that the best example of a controvertible teaching you can come up with is the Adam-God theory. Could you, for once, come up with something that Pdt Monson taught that may be controvertible?

[Questing Beast]

Questing Beast:

There are less than 7 Billions of people in the world with over 1 Billion Roman Catholics, about another 1 Billion other Christians, over a Billion Muslims, about a Billion Hindu, add in over 1 Billion various oriental religion practitioners. I don't see where you get "And the vast, three-quarters of the earth's inhabitants who don't want to adhere to any dogma in particular".

I am "on record" as a member of the CoJCoLDS. But I do not adhere to any dogma in particular - although I used to.

Around three-fourths of LDS members are "less active" (a euphemism for "not adhering"). We have a particularly high activity rate compared to other denominations of the "Abrahamic religions". I can't say how "active" the other non Judeo-Christian religions are; but I suspect that actual "adherence" to their practices is not going to be as high as Mormon activity rates are.

So that puts three out of four members of record of the various religions in the "Not adhering" category. And there are a LOT of people who do not claim association with any religion....

(BTW, you'll want to be revising your "less than 7 billion" later this year; this is the year we pass the 7 billion mark.)

[Questing Beast]

And there you have it. QB just hates our missionary program. Bummer, I don't see it stopping any time soon.

"Your prophets" was a collective term, not against Mormon missionary work. I have a son on a FT mission in Brasil; another just returned from Alaska. A third served in Chile in the mid 90's. I don't "send" my boys on missions, though: they GO themselves. I think it's a fine way to meet part of the world and share your beliefs, charity and influence. Our missionaries don't "push" the prophet; they are seeking those who are seeking a change and might find it in Mormonism. I have no problem with that since joining is completely voluntary. But Mormons do have a fair ways to go, to get over this "us and them" attitude. On the whole, humanity has a long ways to go with that one....