Pure Speculation or Testimony from the Spirit?

[tubaloth]

The only thing I see missing here is we believe in continuous revelation.   This means we aren't stuck on pass prophets words, because we have a current prophet.  That means the doctrines we follow are what are taught by the current prophet, not the past.   That isn't to say the past prophets don't have good doctrine, thats why we have scriptures of past prophets teachings.  But there are many teachings that are only for that time and that place.  They were true for that time, but that doesn't mean they are always true.  New Revelation comes, new teachings come for our time and our place. 

I know Joseph Smith and Brigham young where prophets, but that doesn't mean I need to follow everything they taught.  What it means is I need to follow my current prophet and all he teaches.

I use the current teachings to interpret past prophets words.  Thats how continuous Revelation works. 

[JaGa]

This means we aren't stuck on pass prophets words, because we have a current prophet.  That means the doctrines we follow are what are taught by the current prophet, not the past.

Tell me, Mr.Tubaloth, what new teachings are you referring to? No prophet should contradict another. If that were the case it would prove the scriptures incorrect, and show that God is a changing God.

As far as prophets giving certain directions to generations of their time that much is true. But there should never be teachings that go against a prophet's of the past. That is like saying God says today baptism is required but tomorrow is a new day and in this new day God does not ask that of His children.

They were true for that time, but that doesn't mean they are always true.

Truth is everlasting truth is eternal. What the heck do you mean they were true than but not now?

And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.

God does not take away truth but the Devil does.

[Saint]

The only thing I see missing here is we believe in continuous revelation.    This means we aren't stuck on pass prophets words, because we have a current prophet.   That means the doctrines we follow are what are taught by the current prophet, not the past.    That isn't to say the past prophets don't have good doctrine, thats why we have scriptures of past prophets teachings.   But there are many teachings that are only for that time and that place.   They were true for that time, but that doesn't mean they are always true.   New Revelation comes, new teachings come for our time and our place.  

I know Joseph Smith and Brigham young where prophets, but that doesn't mean I need to follow everything they taught.   What it means is I need to follow my current prophet and all he teaches. 

I use the current teachings to interpret past prophets words.   Thats how continuous Revelation works.  

      That's an excellent comment Tabaloth, well said and I would agree completely.   

      In my opinion, those who have an 'issue' with what past prophets have said vs.  the words of current prophets are either being too critical and in danger of losing whatever connection they have with Holy Ghost and the Church, or have already gone too far.       

      President Ezra Taft Benson wrote an article and it is an article called First Presidency Message
Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet. .  Everyone should read it.  It should clear up any controversy / questions / doubts / criticism that anyone has over the words spoken by past and present prophets.   And if it doesn't, then I would say that person has traveled a very great distance down the road to apostasy.   Read the article again.   

      One of the most interesting and profound statements in that article, out of many profound statements, was this: 

Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.

      I will only post the Points made by President Benson you will have to go to lds. org for the content, found in June 1981 Ensign.


First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.


Peace >8D

[Happy_LDS]

Saint, there are several issues with your points and I would like to address them:

  In my opinion, those who have an 'issue' with what past prophets have said vs.  the words of current prophets are either being too critical and in danger of losing whatever connection they have with Holy Ghost and the Church, or have already gone too far.   

Being too critical? Going too far? What do you exactly mean? The issue that I think is being raised is that yes, we believe in new revelation however, can a present and past prophet contradict each other on a specific issue? I think is a valid question.

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet. .  Everyone should read it.  It should clear up any controversy / questions / doubts / criticism that anyone has over the words spoken by past and present prophets.   And if it doesn't, then I would say that person has traveled a very great distance down the road to apostasy.

Whoah, I think you're misjudging people who may have true concerns. It IS okay to question unless you believe the Prophets are infallible? (point number 4 in Pres. Benson's talk) Are they according to you? If they are, then I truly understand your position on this issue, if you do not then I don't understand you.

Looking forward to your reply.

[tragula]

Sorry, I should of clarified that I was talking about things mentioned in General Conference.  What about Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine? Many say it was his own opinion, but he clearly states numerously that it was revelation.  There are also many other doctrines spoken of in general conference that many buck at, and say: "Well it wasn't sustained by a vote".  Well, did we not all sustain the prophet, do we not all claim testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants, in which it states that when ever a prophet is speaking under the direction of the Spirit, that we should take it as though God had spoken it Himself. 

The Prophet Joseph Smith said that "a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as a prophet."  The implication is that at other times, when he is not acting as a prophet, he may be speaking his own opinion, and we can rightly question those opinions.  So, that raises the question, when is a prophet acting as a prophet?  President David O. McKay assigned President J. Reuben Clark to address that issue in an address that he gave to the ces employees many years ago, and President Clark's conclusion was that a prophet is speaking as a prophet when he is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and the only way that we can tell whether or not he is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is if we, ourselves, have the Holy Ghost to bear witness to us that the Prophet is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.  Please note that he did not say that any time the Prophet is speaking in conference he is acting as a Prophet.  The idea that everything that anyone says in General Conference is automatically inspired by the Holy Ghost is Mormon folklore and is not true.  The Lord does not take away the free agency of the General Authorities while they are speaking in General Conference just to make sure that they don't make any mistakes while they are speaking in General Conference.

As for the Adam-God doctrine, that is a perfectly good theory, and the only problem with it is that it is flatly contradicted by the standard works of the Church, which the members of the Church have voted upon and accepted as scripture and the official doctrine of the Church.  Furthermore, Brigham Young, himself, confessed that he had been wrong to teach it.  Thus, those who teach it today are doubly wrong because they have the confession of Brigham Young on record to warn them against it, but the stubbornly insist on teaching it anyway.