Friend Has Questions Why Living Prophets Change Commandments

[Christian Mormon]

he emailed me this question:

I've asked this question many many many times but I never ever get an honest answer. Now don't go and say it's "antimormon".

The Mormons believe that no matter WHAT a previous prophet says that the latest prophet can contradict the former's prophecies and/or statements. Playing "musical prophets" this way, while not Biblicaly correct, makes the nasty crap the previous guys did go away! Oh well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...and false beliefs! What is the point of God revealing revelation to a prophet if He is just gonna change it and reveal something different to the next prophet? Confusing and makes no sense.

thx for help

[Duncan]

I don't find it confusing. I don't live in the US in say 1840, I live in Canada today, 2012. I don't live by what was said, i live by what is said. I am not going to be judged by what was said to the Church back whenever but when I lived

[altersteve]

Not everything a prophet says is the word of God. Like Joseph Smith said, a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting like one. We believe in continuing revelation, which is the idea that God reveals His will to man "line upon line," and "precept upon precept."

[Kevin Christensen]

he emailed me this question:

I've asked this question many many many times but I never ever get an honest answer. Now don't go and say it's "antimormon".

The Mormons believe that no matter WHAT a previous prophet says that the latest prophet can contradict the former's prophecies and/or statements. Playing "musical prophets" this way, while not Biblicaly correct, makes the nasty crap the previous guys did go away! Oh well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...and false beliefs! What is the point of God revealing revelation to a prophet if He is just gonna change it and reveal something different to the next prophet? Confusing and makes no sense.

thx for help

Look through the Sermon on the Mount and see how many times Jesus says, "Ye have heard it said,... but i say unto you."

Look through the Physics of Aristotle, and see how much of it still holds. Or Newton. Or Freud. Odd that science can change without loosing its authority, but if some part of religion does, then the whole edifice becomes illogical and unreasonable.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[selek1]

he emailed me this question:

Email him back and ask when he stopped beating his wife.

I've asked this question many many many times but I never ever get an honest answer.

Probably because it's not an honest question.

Now don't go and say it's "antimormon".

Not "anti-mormon". Merely "pedantic", "dishonest", "misleading", "absurd", and "deliberately, willfully obtuse". It is a classic example of the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum (I think I spelled that correctly) in which a perfectly reasonable position is reduced to an absurd extreme and then ridiculed.

Mormons do not believe that a modern Prophet can contradict a predecessor "no matter what". If Thomas Monson were to suddenly announce that "it was all a sham", or "that there is no life after death", or that "Christ was merely a good man rather than the Son of God", he'd be slapped with emeritus status and put out to pasture before the ink was dry on the order to commit him to a mental institution.

The Mormons believe that no matter WHAT a previous prophet says that the latest prophet can contradict the former's prophecies and/or statements.

Mormons believe no such thing. This is a strawman, a deliberately misleading and offensive parody of Latter-day Saint belief, and ranks on the same level as "Jews make matza from the blood of Christian babies" and "Blacks love watermelon and fried chicken".

It is a deliberate misrepresentation predicated on ignorance, bigotry, and an unfounded sense of superiority.

Playing "musical prophets" this way, while not Biblicaly correct, makes the nasty crap the previous guys did go away!

Not really. It's done nothing to make your "friend" disappear.

Of course, bearing false witness against an entire religious faith is perfectly acceptable when motivated by "Christian love".

Oh well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...and false beliefs!

Apparently he's well on that path, having gotten in the express basket.

What is the point of God revealing revelation to a prophet if He is just gonna change it and reveal something different to the next prophet?

Can your friend cite a single instance where this was the case?

LDS history and theology have a notable dearth of such instances.

Confusing and makes no sense.

A perfectly adequate summary of your "friends" reasoning. The Latter-day Saint position, on the other hand, bears no resemblance to your "friend's" claims.

For the record, Mormons do not believe that a Prophet can contradict or "overturn" his predecessors willy-nilly or "no matter what".

Unlike the unsavory and bigoted caricature your "friend" offers, Mormons believe that there are limits on the power and authority of the Prophet.

We believe that new revelation on doctrinal matters must be received and then confirmed a/o ratified by the whole of the First PResidency and the Quorum of the Twelve apostles.

Each faithful Mormon is commanded to then test and to try all things for himself (or herself) by the Spirit and by reason.

Nothing is "official" unless ratified by the voice of the people.

Revelations and pronouncements are not made in a vacuum, but rather are received in prayerful meditation, in study of the Scriptures, and are subject to confirmation- first by the Brethren, and then by the laity as a whole.

And I guarantee you that were a Prophet to come out and announce the sort of radical and unsupported changes in doctrine that your "friend" implies, he'd be shut down in a heartbeat.

Edited January 23, 2012 by selek1

[TAO]

CM, consider the Old Law and the New Law. They aren't the same. Jesus didn't change the law, rather, new laws were applied depending on the circumstances that God's people were in. Similarly, I don't expect the law of the church today, to be a universal law, applying as much to the Israelites back then as it does to us now. If God feels a law needs to be added or replaced with something higher (or something lower if we are being disobedient), then that is his choice, and it doesn't change who he is one bit. It must be remembered - the commandments aren't just coming from the prophets... they are coming from God, through the prophets =). God isn't changing, his rules are for the people at the time he gives them. This doesn't just mean we can change them of course - only God can authorize that.

Hope this helps!

-TAO

Edited January 23, 2012 by TAO

[altersteve]

Look through the Sermon on the Mount and see how many times Jesus says, "Ye have heard it said,... but i say unto you."

This is exactly what Mormons should point out whenever a Christian critic complains about LDS doctrine changing.

Awesome.

Edited January 23, 2012 by altersteve

[JDave]

Look through the Sermon on the Mount and see how many times Jesus says, "Ye have heard it said,... but i say unto you."

This is exactly what Mormons should point out whenever a Christian critic complains about LDS doctrine changing.

Awesome.

Most would reply that it was Christ's job and mission to fulfill and be the final word on things. Which makes the vision of Peter (Acts 10) which changed things to allow preaching to the Gentiles a very good example to bring up as well. Revelation and change continued even after Christ ascended!

[Freedom]

Many great responses have been posted but one problem with the question is that this person has not set any perimeters. What do they consider a change? Are they under the assumption that entire do. Show them an example of how biblical prophets have provided new direction and then have them provide a specific example of how LDS prophets have rejected old instructions. It is difficult to have a dialogue, in my opinion, without a foundation for discussion.

[Storm Rider]

he emailed me this question:

I've asked this question many many many times but I never ever get an honest answer. Now don't go and say it's "antimormon".

The Mormons believe that no matter WHAT a previous prophet says that the latest prophet can contradict the former's prophecies and/or statements. Playing "musical prophets" this way, while not Biblicaly correct, makes the nasty crap the previous guys did go away! Oh well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...and false beliefs! What is the point of God revealing revelation to a prophet if He is just gonna change it and reveal something different to the next prophet? Confusing and makes no sense.

thx for help

Hello Christian, these types of questions make assumptions to build a position; however, the assumption may be incorrect. What exactly is the contradiction he sees or has read about? If he cannot be specific, then there is no honest question. It really is like the question already stated, "When did you start beating your wife?"

[ebeddoulos]

he emailed me this question:

I've asked this question many many many times but I never ever get an honest answer. Now don't go and say it's "antimormon".

The Mormons believe that no matter WHAT a previous prophet says that the latest prophet can contradict the former's prophecies and/or statements. Playing "musical prophets" this way, while not Biblicaly correct, makes the nasty crap the previous guys did go away! Oh well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...and false beliefs! What is the point of God revealing revelation to a prophet if He is just gonna change it and reveal something different to the next prophet? Confusing and makes no sense.

thx for help

There is a mistaken belief held by some scripturally ignorant anti-Mormon types that all revelations must agree and harmonize with those revelations already received. Apparently, your friend is numbered in this grouping. This absurd and ludicrous assumption simply does not square with the scriptures. As has been pointed out by Kevin, the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount has several instances where Jesus begin his teaching with “Ye have heard…” and ended it with “But I say unto you …”. Here is one example:

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)

At this place and time, early in his ministry, Christ was still relatively unknown. Yet he declared that his teachings were superior to the Law of Moses and even the Decalogue or Ten Commandments:

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)

For another example, in Genesis 17:13, God calls circumcision “an everlasting covenant.”

“He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” (Genesis 17:13)

Everlasting in this verse comes from the Hebrew word olam עוָֹלם)) which means eternity. Now for most people everlasting and eternity is a pretty long time. Yet the New Testament Apostle Paul argued against the Mosaic Law of circumcision, saying that “circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19) and that “in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision” (Galatians 5:6).

“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:19)

“For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” (Galatians 5:6)

Peter, another ancient Apostle, held a life long belief, based on God’s law, which expressly forbid him to eat certain animals. If these animals were eaten it would make the eater abominable and unclean in the sight of God.

“And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten. Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.” (Leviticus 11:41-47)

This is why Peter disbelieved the revelation given to him in Acts 10:9–15, in which he is told by Jesus Christ to eat “unclean” things.

“On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” (Acts 10:9-15)

So much did he disbelieve this, that the revelation had to be repeated three times before he would accept it. Only when the servant of Cornelius arrived did Peter eventually come understand that to eat “unclean” things was by extension a command from God to preach the gospel to the “unclean” Gentiles. (Acts 10:16-22)

“This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate, And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them. Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.” (Acts 10:16-22)

Just an aside: Cornelius was destined to be the first gentile convert to Christianity. (Acts 10:44-48)

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” (Acts 10:44-48)

What appears to be a change of doctrine by a God that never changes is actually similar to a parent telling her child, “Do not cross the street unless I say it is safe to do so.” When the circumstances are right, it is then safe to cross the road. Until then, the admonition to not cross the road is in effect. An example of this appears in the Book of Mormon:

“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Jacob 2:24-30)

Or it can be a case of where the original commandment lays the foundation on which the second commandment is designed to provide the structure to turn common human beings into worthy children of God. Another example from the Sermon on the Mount illustrates this:

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48)

As shown above, your friend is simply incorrect in his understanding of the Bible and the way in which God works. So wrong in fact that he reminds me of Matthew 22:29.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29)

I would also point out that your friend failed to provide a single example of anyone "Playing 'musical prophets'". At this point in time your friend has made a bald, unsupported assertion which is even more worthless than a U.S. $1,000,000 bill. It is nothing more than a bogus curiosity. It is your friend who appears to be travelling the road paved with good intentions. Now that is my honest answer.

[rameumptom]

The Bible frequently has a newer prophet changing things taught by previous prophets. Christ taught his apostles to only go to the house of Israel. Later, Peter had revealed to him that things were going to be different.

Early Christianity was a sect of Judaism, Paul changed that. Gentiles did not require circumcision, even though it was part of the "eternal covenant" God made through Moses. You'll note that animal sacrifice and many other things were done away with, as older forms of faith were replaced with newer forms introduced via revelation.

The fact that many Christian faiths struggle with change from their past, makes them no different than Mormons on this. The American Baptist Convention broke into two back in the 1840s over the slavery issue. Southern Baptists promoted slavery. When that failed, they promoted segregation. Only in the last 50 years have they changed from previous stances that were considered proper and prudent at one point in time. Many modern Christian churches now deal with issues like homosexuality. Do they follow their tradition and Biblical readings regarding it, or do they take a more modern view of the Bible and interpret it as to approve of certain forms previously considered major sin?

As LDS, we do not believe God has revealed all things to our prophets. Much of what they teach us in any particular time comes from a mixture of revelation and their efforts to understand the revealed word. Later revelations teach us that sometimes the mixture of concepts are not correct, and like the original Southern Baptist views on slavery, are eventually abandoned and replaced with a more enlightened belief. The difference for the LDS Church is that the changes occur as newer revelation clarifies and improves upon older beliefs.

[Storm Rider]

Too often the history card has been played against the LDS Church. This is allowed because of such gross ignorance of the history of all other Christian churches. None could study European history and then conclude that the Catholic Church was lead by God or they would have to admit that Catholcism was run by men with all the weaknesses that every other man had. None could study the OT and conlcude that the prophets were all perfectly righteousness or they might have to decide they were just men. None could study Martin Luther and conclude this was a man of God...or they would have to eventually conclude that he was just a man full of his own weaknesses. In fact, I don't know of a perfect man, except for Jesus of Nazareth and he was the Son of God.

As a people we continue to put all religious figures on such high pedestals and then complain when we knock them off. We keep expecting them to be perfect men and only perfect men. God does not call perfect men to be his representatives; he never has.

The history card will work as long as society remains ignorant of history in general.

Oh, btw, it was not until 1995 that the Southern Baptist Convention decided to reject their policies of segregation. That is 1995 boys and girls. How many times do you hear any criticism of the SBC for their racist background? Go ahead, count them. Now tell me, why does the LDS Church have it used so often. Can you say Lucifier fighting against the Kingdom of God three times real fast?

Edited January 23, 2012 by Storm Rider

[LeSellers]

The issues are, in addition to those already mentioned, clarification and adaptation.

Modern, living prophets clarify how the word of the Lord applies to our day. They tell us how to obey, for instance, the Word of Wisdom.

They also adapt existing commandments (like the Word of Wisdom) to our specific climate. The eating of meat was once limited, but today, not much. Why? I don't know. But I do surmise that meat, in 1840, was not refrigerated, and spoiled quickly, unless salted or dried. Today, we have frozen meat, refrigerated meat. We can ship it from Helsinki to Buenos Aires without its becoming putrid. Eating it presents no problem. The prophets (under the direction of God) have modified the practice of Word of Wisdom, adapted it to our times.

When their Temple was destroyed after Christ, the Jews had no place acceptable to offer the required sacrifices. While I'm not saying they were inspired to do so, the rabbis changed Judaism into something very different from what it had been when the high priest went into the Holy of Holies every year. When something becomes impossible, the Lord has done for us what the rabbis did for Judah: He adapts His laws to our needs.

Finally, like others here, I reject the notion that the prophets have contradicted any commandment. Even the most frequently used "example" of this, OD1, was not a contradiction. It was fully supported by scripture (Jacob 2), and Wilford Woodruff received a revelation on the subject in any case. We still believe in Plural Marriage, but we do not practice it for now. Whether we will in the future is an open question, but the principle remains in place, nonetheless. See Doc&Cov 132, which is still part of the canon.

Lehi

Edited January 24, 2012 by LeSellers