A living prophet or Dead prophet?

[ElfLord]

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.

Rob seems to miss the fact that the Lord though living prophets often does reinterpret and correct the teachings of Prophets of the past. A couple examples...

Jeremiah 31:29

In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children

[Skylla]

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:

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

Under the section that lists behavior that won't be tolerated:

Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

Your reference should not include links to sites that contain temple content.

Skylla

[Sky]

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

As has been alluded to by thesometimesaint, a member of the Church who willfully and openly chooses to not sustain the President of the Church and the other General Authorities becomes ineligible for a Temple Recommend. They have the right to make that choice, but a consequence of that choice is that they lose certain privileges that come with being a member of the Church.

And as far as the so called

[erichard]

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?

Hi,

For one thing the D&C is FULL of teachings that the church does not live. I sincerely believe it is an honest controversy to question that.

Many of the things in the D&C that are not lived could be lived and are not against the law. And the church could fight for the right again to live anything that may today be somewhat against the law.

The D&C teaches that IT is the law the church is to live by. But today the law the church lives by is the men in the flesh at the head of the church. That could be a serious problem, could it not? D&C 43:9-10 teaches that if the church does not live by the D&C laws it is given things will be TAKEN from them. Have spiritual blessings been taken from the church?

If there is a problem with the church leadership, then it a very serious one because it includes all their efforts to place themselves above any possible controversy. That itself is a justifiable controversy that should be settled for some of us.

The 1978 change by President Kimball was not done by common consent ahead of time. The church announced the change, and then immediately ordained blacks, allowed them into the temples and even blacks and whites were married in the Temples. And then four months later the church was asked to sustain what had already been done. There are many serious ramifications with this change if it was done just to get ahead in the world. This again is a very justifiable controversy over President Monson who supports the change.

And there is a lot more.

Richard

[TAO]

For one thing the D&C is FULL of teachings that the church does not live. I sincerely believe it is an honest controversy to question that.

Indeed it is, but not I think because the church does not want to live them. I believe it actually may be the members may not want to live them, and thus, the church cannot introduce them - much as what happened with the law of consecration being replaced with the law of tithing. When the people are not ready, the Lord has them live another way.

Many of the things in the D&C that are not lived could be lived and are not against the law. And the church could fight for the right again to live anything that may today be somewhat against the law.

The church could do that, but I do not think they would do that.

The D&C teaches that IT is the law the church is to live by. But today the law the church lives by is the men in the flesh at the head of the church. That could be a serious problem, could it not? D&C 43:9-10 teaches that if the church does not live by the D&C laws it is given things will be TAKEN from them. Have spiritual blessings been taken from the church?

The D&C also teaches that sometimes the Lord will remove his higher laws due to problems of the people themselves. Indeed, I think some blessings have been taken away, but not because the church wouldn't be willing to live them (I think the FP, Q of 12, Q of 70 would be willing to), but because the people would not be ready to live the higher laws required for higher blessings.

If there is a problem with the church leadership, then it a very serious one because it includes all their efforts to place themselves above any possible controversy. That itself is a justifiable controversy that should be settled for some of us.

The 1978 change by President Kimball was not done by common consent ahead of time. The church announced the change, and then immediately ordained blacks, allowed them into the temples and even blacks and whites were married in the Temples. And then four months later the church was asked to sustain what had already been done. There are many serious ramifications with this change if it was done just to get ahead in the world. This again is a very justifiable controversy over President Monson who supports the change.

Read the verses also from D&C 43... that is 1 to 7. It talks of only receiving revelation for the entire church through the prophet, does it not? If President Kimball received a revelation, would he not be able to act upon it? Indeed, they may have moved to fast, but if the Lord is not criticizing them for it, it is not my place to criticize them for it then. The Lord does the directing, not me, and if it be the Lord's will that it be done 5 months before sustaining, that be fine with me.

And there is a lot more.

What other things are you talking about?

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Sky]

Hi,

For one thing the D&C is FULL of teachings that the church does not live. I sincerely believe it is an honest controversy to question that.

Many of the things in the D&C that are not lived could be lived and are not against the law. And the church could fight for the right again to live anything that may today be somewhat against the law.

The D&C teaches that IT is the law the church is to live by. But today the law the church lives by is the men in the flesh at the head of the church. That could be a serious problem, could it not? D&C 43:9-10 teaches that if the church does not live by the D&C laws it is given things will be TAKEN from them. Have spiritual blessings been taken from the church?

If there is a problem with the church leadership, then it a very serious one because it includes all their efforts to place themselves above any possible controversy. That itself is a justifiable controversy that should be settled for some of us.

The 1978 change by President Kimball was not done by common consent ahead of time. The church announced the change, and then immediately ordained blacks, allowed them into the temples and even blacks and whites were married in the Temples. And then four months later the church was asked to sustain what had already been done. There are many serious ramifications with this change if it was done just to get ahead in the world. This again is a very justifiable controversy over President Monson who supports the change.

And there is a lot more.

Richard

I happen to disagree with the way you are interpreting the D&C. And I don

[stYro]

Under the section that lists behavior that won't be tolerated:

Your reference should not include links to sites that contain temple content.

Skylla

I had no idea that site contained temple content. I thought it was an approved LDS site. My computer's history file shows the site to have the words "lds'' and "mormon" in the address; that sounded like an LDS site to me. The talk I linked to was by Ezra Taft Benson. Is it an anti-mormon site? I would not have expected a talk by Ezra Taft Benson to show up on an anti-mormon site, but I guess it can happen.

Stepping back a bit, my attempt to come up with a reference in response to nicolasconnault's challenge was a pretty dismal failure; all I did was break another rule.

I suppose you're giving me the benefit of the doubt at this point, and that's why I'm allowed still here. Thank you.

[nicolasconnault]

I had no idea that site contained temple content. I thought it was an approved LDS site. My computer's history file shows the site to have the words "lds'' and "mormon" in the address; that sounded like an LDS site to me. The talk I linked to was by Ezra Taft Benson. Is it an anti-mormon site? I would not have expected a talk by Ezra Taft Benson to show up on an anti-mormon site, but I guess it can happen.

Stepping back a bit, my attempt to come up with a reference in response to nicolasconnault's challenge was a pretty dismal failure; all I did was break another rule.

I suppose you're giving me the benefit of the doubt at this point, and that's why I'm allowed still here. Thank you.

Don't beat yourself up, stYro, you're doing fine The moderators are just doing their job, and I got bitten a couple of times myself early on because I hadn't read the terms of use carefully! I doubt you'll have many more of these mishaps now

[stYro]

Don't beat yourself up, stYro, you're doing fine The moderators are just doing their job, and I got bitten a couple of times myself early on because I hadn't read the terms of use carefully! I doubt you'll have many more of these mishaps now

Merci beaucoup.

[erichard]

I happen to disagree with the way you are interpreting the D&C. And I don

[thesometimesaint]

erichard:

That halo of yours is getting pretty tight isn't it. NO ONE gave you the authority to make those judgments. So climb down.

[erichard]

erichard:

That halo of yours is getting pretty tight isn't it. NO ONE gave you the authority to make those judgments. So climb down.

What judgments?

I am just living by JST Mark 9:44

Therefore, let EVERY MAN stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another.

[TAO]

But they honestly sound to me too much like, "all is well in Zion, yea, Zion prospereth..." (2 Nephi 28)

Actually, some of the time, this is how God wishes for things to be. Mosiah 27:37, reads:

And how blessed are they! For they did ^apublish ^bpeace; they did publish good tidings of good; and they did declare unto the people that the Lord reigneth.

The Lord expects us not only to be wary of the bad, but also to publish tidings of good. I think this is President Monson's forte, actually.

If you look at my avatar, you will see a smiling cat with closed eyes. And I guess it can be used symbolically in a way here. One of the things about cats - even when they have closed eyes, they are always looking. They are keenly aware of their surroundings. However, a happy cat will ignore it's surroundings. It will close it's eyes and be blissful, it will be kind, and loving, and good - simply because happiness is a glorious thing. I assure you, that President Monson, like the cat, sees many bad things in the world, and though he does not show it, he is wary of it. But he chooses, like a happy cat, to focus on the good, to lead by example, and to push people to do righteousness of their own will. It is the way the Lord wishes it =).

We need more happy cats like President Monson in this world, that we do.

It makes no sense to me for the Lord to give revelations and commandments and laws to the Prophet Joseph in Word of the Lord oracles, and have him write them in a book, and have the people covenant to live by those commandments and laws--

and then have men with no evidence of the gift to write such oracles, have "continuous revelation" that does away with many things that the original book sets up as laws. It just makes some of us very suspicious that there could be a problem.

You may be suspicious if you would like. But I will not be suspicious, I also will be like a happy cat, seeing what is wrong, but glorying in the bliss of what is right. I will try to fix things by example, and not criticism, whenever possible.

I also know that the Lord hasn't done away with the things written permanently - he will bring them back in his own time according to his own will. But it is for him to decide when the time in is, not me, never me. We all pale to his knowledge and power.

And that fact that the church has no real way to have a legitimate controversy over the heads of the church and try to resolve it makes it all the more suspicious. The adversary is a master of deception and his ways are always upheld by coercion, sometimes just subtle coercion. There is way too much evidence of subtle coercion at the head of the church today.

3 Nephi 11:30

Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things ^ashould be done away.

It is not for us to have controversy over a subject. We may feel things on our own, but ultimately, if we do not believe, we have responsibility for ourselves, and not for others. If you do not believe the Lord has chosen President Monson as his servant upon the earth, you should make actions that only effect you, not others. It is not for us to compel our brothers, but to suggest, and assist, and help. It is not for us to use a forceful tone against them except when the Lord tells us to.

The D&C says that the Lord will give us a "pattern in all things" so that we will not be deceived. Joseph was given a gift to receive Commandments and Revelations in Word of the Lord oracles pretty much in the identical pattern found in ancient Israel, including some in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.

Presidents Young, Taylor and Woodruff also brought forth similar revelations in the identical pattern. But after that there is simply no evidence that this gift has existed at the head of the LDS church.

Listen to his talks in conference, and think about them. Don't think about their implications, think about what they mean to you... think about what the Lord wishes you to do considering the information he gives you through these wondeful talks. President Monson's revelation is truly in his power to speak. He has had his words made strong by the lord, so that those who wish to drink, may do it, and rejoice.

I can tell you, that certain of President Monson's talks come at the exact right time for me. The Lord has prepared them.

Is that not a legitimate concern? How can I compare a man who brought forth oracles according to the pattern given in all former ages to true prophets of Israel with men today that only have discourses and books and never write such oracles? How do they compare?

The writing of books is not the only power of revelation given. General Conference has been a place where revelation has been given for many years, and it will continue to be a precious thing in the future. Listen, and feast ! =D

The fact that men are ordained to an office simply is not good enough. Many are called but few are chosen. The men who crucified Christ could honestly show their line of ordinations back to Aaron and Moses. And Christ did not argue against their claim to authority.

So do not argue, but instead, live your life, to the fullest degree Christ wishes you to. He has an expectation of you that is unique to you - he has unique expectations for each of us, depending on what each of us are capable of. Do not worry so much on how others are living up to their expectations, unless the Lord asks you to, in which case, you probably should. But, at least for me, I find it is more important to focus on fixing my errors than it is noticing the errs of others. And I have many, many more to fix, that I do. =)

I remain convinced "all is not well in Zion" is more than just a few home teachers neglecting their duty.

I agree, all is not well in Zion, but I know also the Lord has a plan for his way to come to pass. We should wait for it, that we should. =)

Please know, that I wrote this in kindness, and not in criticism, so if it seems to harsh, please have a grain of sugar included. Thanks =D.

[erichard]

...

I agree, all is not well in Zion, but I know also the Lord has a plan for his way to come to pass. We should wait for it, that we should. =)

Please know, that I wrote this in kindness, and not in criticism, so if it seems to harsh, please have a grain of sugar included. Thanks =D.

Thank you for your very kind reply.

Richard

[TAO]

Thank you for your very kind reply.

Richard

Not a problem =). It is one of my weaknesses made strong, I think... I still struggle with it a bit, but it is coming to me. I still fail alot of the time though =/.

[Sky]

Actually, some of the time, this is how God wishes for things to be. Mosiah 27:37, reads:

The Lord expects us not only to be wary of the bad, but also to publish tidings of good. I think this is President Monson's forte, actually.

If you look at my avatar, you will see a smiling cat with closed eyes. And I guess it can be used symbolically in a way here. One of the things about cats - even when they have closed eyes, they are always looking. They are keenly aware of their surroundings. However, a happy cat will ignore it's surroundings. It will close it's eyes and be blissful, it will be kind, and loving, and good - simply because happiness is a glorious thing. I assure you, that President Monson, like the cat, sees many bad things in the world, and though he does not show it, he is wary of it. But he chooses, like a happy cat, to focus on the good, to lead by example, and to push people to do righteousness of their own will. It is the way the Lord wishes it =).

We need more happy cats like President Monson in this world, that we do.

You may be suspicious if you would like. But I will not be suspicious, I also will be like a happy cat, seeing what is wrong, but glorying in the bliss of what is right. I will try to fix things by example, and not criticism, whenever possible.

I also know that the Lord hasn't done away with the things written permanently - he will bring them back in his own time according to his own will. But it is for him to decide when the time in is, not me, never me. We all pale to his knowledge and power.

3 Nephi 11:30

It is not for us to have controversy over a subject. We may feel things on our own, but ultimately, if we do not believe, we have responsibility for ourselves, and not for others. If you do not believe the Lord has chosen President Monson as his servant upon the earth, you should make actions that only effect you, not others. It is not for us to compel our brothers, but to suggest, and assist, and help. It is not for us to use a forceful tone against them except when the Lord tells us to.

Listen to his talks in conference, and think about them. Don't think about their implications, think about what they mean to you... think about what the Lord wishes you to do considering the information he gives you through these wondeful talks. President Monson's revelation is truly in his power to speak. He has had his words made strong by the lord, so that those who wish to drink, may do it, and rejoice.

I can tell you, that certain of President Monson's talks come at the exact right time for me. The Lord has prepared them.

The writing of books is not the only power of revelation given. General Conference has been a place where revelation has been given for many years, and it will continue to be a precious thing in the future. Listen, and feast ! =D

So do not argue, but instead, live your life, to the fullest degree Christ wishes you to. He has an expectation of you that is unique to you - he has unique expectations for each of us, depending on what each of us are capable of. Do not worry so much on how others are living up to their expectations, unless the Lord asks you to, in which case, you probably should. But, at least for me, I find it is more important to focus on fixing my errors than it is noticing the errs of others. And I have many, many more to fix, that I do. =)

I agree, all is not well in Zion, but I know also the Lord has a plan for his way to come to pass. We should wait for it, that we should. =)

Please know, that I wrote this in kindness, and not in criticism, so if it seems to harsh, please have a grain of sugar included. Thanks =D.

Well said, TAO! Amen.

I still genuinely disagree with erichard

[thesometimesaint]

erichard:

"It makes no sense to me for the Lord to give revelations and commandments and laws to the Prophet Joseph in Word of the Lord oracles, and have him write them in a book, and have the people covenant to live by those commandments and laws--

and then have men with no evidence of the gift to write such oracles, have "continuous revelation" that does away with many things that the original book sets up as laws. It just makes some of us very suspicious that there could be a problem.".

I don't know about you, but I don't worship at the Church of Joseph Smith, or the Church of Thomas S. Monson, or any other Fallible Man.

I did and do take offense at your post. It is NOT your job to call the Church or the leadership to repentance. You either sustain our leaders and have a testimony of their roles in continuing revelation or you do not.

The Lord does not tell me every little step to take, what flavor of ice cream to eat, and it would be a fair assumption that he does not our leaders either.

Your little controversies are of no great moment to anyone but yourself.

"The adversary is a master of deception and his ways are always upheld by coercion, sometimes just subtle coercion. There is way too much evidence of subtle coercion at the head of the church today."

So now according to you the Church is being run by the devils.

"Joseph was given a gift to receive Commandments and Revelations in Word of the Lord". "But after that there is simply no evidence that this gift has existed at the head of the LDS church.".

So now you worship at the Church of Joseph Smith, and demand we do the same.

"How can I compare a man who brought forth oracles according to the pattern given in all former ages to true prophets of Israel with men today that only have discourses and books and never write such oracles?".

Need I remind you that it is the King Follett DISCOURSE?

"I remain convinced "all is not well in Zion" is more than just a few home teachers neglecting their duty.".

No one gave you the authority to make those judgments, so climb down.

[Questing Beast]

Why would anyone quibble over sustaining Monson? After Hinckley? After Hunter? After Benson? Oh, wait a sec, THAT IS a difference. He was the last of the "old school" fire-eater breed. Well, the last serving as president. If Packer ever gets in he'll be similar to Benson.

But anyway, what is the trouble here? They are leaders of a worldwide church org. Try that on for size someday and I just bet anyone will have very second thoughts about how to go about it before the morning of the second day "in office"....

[erichard]

...

Your reply does not make a lot of sense to me.

Except as an effort on your part to big brother/bandwagon/bully me into compliance.

It reminds me of what President Young would say about Elder Orson Pratt when Orson would not knuckle under and accept his Adam-God teachings: "I'll pull his ear until I get him right"

Are you the board bully?

Richard