Living prophets vs. dead prophets

[SoCalCoug]

Some of the discussions that have been going on have brought me back to the old, stale arguments where one side brings up things that former church leaders have said that now appear on their face to be incorrect, and the other side says we should focus on what living prophets say, and not dead ones.

How does that second side get around the focus of the church Sunday school curriculum based for the last decade on the teachings of the dead modern prophets?

[CardiacCoug]

Some of the discussions that have been going on have brought me back to the old, stale arguments where one side brings up things that former church leaders have said that now appear on their face to be incorrect, and the other side says we should focus on what living prophets say, and not dead ones.

How does that second side get around the focus of the church Sunday school curriculum based for the last decade on the teachings of the dead modern prophets?

We believe everything the dead prophets said except for all the crazy things they said. (Blood atonement, Adam-God, etc., Seed of Cain, etc.)

[TripletDaddy]

I think it is interesting that SoCal brings this up, in an obvious attempt to justify his own discomfort with what the modern living prophets have to say.

--LA Ute

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think most members don't want to acknowledge contradictions between old and new prophets. Or they view the differences not as contradictions, but "further light and knowledge".

There is definitely a militant trend in the church at the moment. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the expression "The prophet will never lead us astray" in priesthood and SS lately. Infallibility has become quasi-doctrine.

[TripletDaddy]

You've got that right.

Although, it is a paradox of sorts...

If you ask most members, I really believe they would agree that the Prophet is not perfect and can make mistakes.

However, if you were to ask if Prophets can make mistakes in formulating opinions, they would say no.

So what this really amounts to is infallibility.

[smokymountainrain]

Zzzzzzzzzzz

[TripletDaddy]

Zzzzzzzzzzz

This is another general response.

It is a fair question. What is your take on it?

[smokymountainrain]

This is another general response.

It is a fair question. What is your take on it?

DDD, if I'm on the second side, why do I have to "get around" anything in the church curriculum that is based on what dead modern Prophets have said?

It seems like a flawed question to me.

I love how so many CUFers have stereotyped the general membership of the church and somehow enjoy using it to make themselves look better/smarter. This thread is just another example of this - hence the Zzzzzz.

[SoCalCoug]

DDD, if I'm on the second side, why do I have to "get around" anything in the church curriculum that is based on what dead modern Prophets have said?

It seems like a flawed question to me.

I love how so many CUFers have stereotyped the general membership of the church and somehow enjoy using it to make themselves look better/smarter. This thread is just another example of this - hence the Zzzzzz.

Dead modern prophets have said the races should be segregated, that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence, that Adam is God, that the civil rights movement is a tool of the communist party. You know, things like that.

Sorry I didn't ask something that intrigued your far superior mind.

[smokymountainrain]

Dead modern prophets have said the races should be segregated, that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence, that Adam is God, that the civil rights movement is a tool of the communist party. You know, things like that.

Are those comments part of the church curriculum?

If they are, I apologize for my ignorance. I've never heard any of those things taught in church. Until then, I will focus on the true principles taught by modern dead prophets.

[SoCalCoug]

DDD, if I'm on the second side, why do I have to "get around" anything in the church curriculum that is based on what dead modern Prophets have said?

It seems like a flawed question to me.

I love how so many CUFers have stereotyped the general membership of the church and somehow enjoy using it to make themselves look better/smarter. This thread is just another example of this - hence the Zzzzzz.

I suppose I can infer from your response that you would answer the question like this: The modern prophets have chosen for us, by including them in the Sunday School curriculum, the words of the dead prophets that are relevant to us; therefore, other things they may have said are not relevant to us and should not be dwelt on.

It's a valid point, I think.

[smokymountainrain]

I suppose I can infer from your response that you would answer the question like this: The modern prophets have chosen for us, by including them in the Sunday School curriculum, the words of the dead prophets that are relevant to us; therefore, other things they may have said are not relevant to us and should not be dwelt on.

It's a valid point, I think.

Bingo. I think I articulated that in my post above, although you did a much better job.

[TripletDaddy]

DDD, if I'm on the second side, why do I have to "get around" anything in the church curriculum that is based on what dead modern Prophets have said?

It seems like a flawed question to me.

This seems like an interesting response and would be good if you would expound on it a bit more. That is the purpose of the discussion. To discuss things.

I love how so many CUFers have stereotyped the general membership of the church and somehow enjoy using it to make themselves look better/smarter. This thread is just another example of this - hence the Zzzzzz.

This is, for lack of a better word, the very "dumbness" against which you rail. It adds nothing and is off topic.

[Levin]

You've got that right.

Although, it is a paradox of sorts...

If you ask most members, I really believe they would agree that the Prophet is not perfect and can make mistakes.

However, if you were to ask if Prophets can make mistakes in formulating opinions, they would say no.

So what this really amounts to is infallibility.

DDD, you may want to consider taking a refresher course in logic at the local community college, or perhaps one online with BYU continuing education. Could prove useful!

I'll take your premises as true (which they're not): A prophet may not be perfect, but still come to the correct "opinions," by which, of course, you mean opinions on spiritual matters (only nutjobs think the prophet has the correct opinion on all things, such as economics, fashion, art, hairdo, etc.).

Imperfect person teaching correct doctrine; this does not amount to general infallibility. It just means an imperfect person teaches doctrinal truth on spiritual matters. It does not mean that those silly "most members" think their mistake-making prophet is infallible, and they don't even realize it!

Now, you could fix your mixed up proof if you want and confine it to "spiritual opinions," but then that would take away the fuzzy logic you like to use to pick on "most Mormons," who, as you've masterfully demonstrated, are so darn inconsistent!

[ERCougar]

(only nutjobs think the prophet has the correct opinion on all things, such as economics, fashion, art, hairdo, etc.).

How's this logic?
A. Only nutjobs think the prophet has the correct opinion on all things, such as economics, fashion, art, hairdo, etc.
B. Many, if not most, Mormons think the prophet has the correct opinion on all things, such as economics, fashion, art, hairdo, etc. (Correct kinds of debt, food storage, missionary cuts, single piercings, etc)

ergo...
C. Many, if not most, Mormons are nutjobs.