Apostles: racing to Francium-223

[Kishkumen]

Unlike vintage comic books and classic cars, prophetic teachings do not become more valuable with age. That is why we should not seek to use the words of past prophets to dismiss the teachings of living prophets.

That has to be one of the dumbest sentiments ever mouthed at GC.

[Doctor Steuss]

I think it begs the question, why would the teachings of prophets be contradictory in a way that one could be used to dismiss the other?

[dastardly stem]

Considering this point of view charitably...

If there is a God and he speaks to humans on earth in some way to convey messages, it may very well be that human receivers suffer greatly in understanding the messages that come. As humans progress in knowledge the older messages relayed from human mouthpieces are discarded as current mouthpieces have gained a better understanding of things to better understand the received messages from God. Or something.

I don't' think it's as far-fetched as saying the Bible is God's word or some nonsense like that. And there's a certain ring to it that sits well with my own fallibilist mindset. This suggests all claims to knowledge are provisional, even revelatory claims. At one point it was thought God told Mormonism to install racist policies. "No. That was wrong. They were working with limited knowledge. They simply misunderstood God and his messages."

So is it right today that all worthy males should be able to hold the priesthood or if ever it changes and women were allowed to have the priesthood and run the church, if you will, does that simply mean current prophets and apostles are too, limited in knowledge, and are wrongly conveying God's message?

It only gets silly once you start inspecting current claims. Like, I don't know...God caring about the word "Mormon" and thinking Satan gets a win whenever that word gets invoked. if that's true of God now, and for 200 some odd years it was true for God...what messages was he trying to convey which got confused by the listener? Or maybe the current thought that it's an assault on God is simply a new misunderstanding and the old was true? if so, that does cause the current statement under question to be nonsense.

Once the Church starts wondering, maybe the Book of Mormon isn't historical? Maybe there was no Jesus nor Moses nor Abraham...the Church will really have to get serious about what its doing. Give it a hundred years and it'll start catching up to today, perhaps.

[MG 2.0]

From the pulpit of April 2023 GC, Elder Allen D. Haynie said,

Unlike vintage comic books and classic cars, prophetic teachings do not become more valuable with age. That is why we should not seek to use the words of past prophets to dismiss the teachings of living prophets.

The second sentence clarifies the meaning behind the first. As a very obvious example, we wouldn’t use the teachings of the past in regards to the plurality of wives and then apply those teachings to then excuse the practice of polygamy today rather than listening to and obeying the current prophet.

Polygamy practiced in the past=OK

Polygamy practiced in the present=not OK.

It doesn’t seem to be rocket science.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

From the pulpit of April 2023 GC, Elder Allen D. Haynie said,

The second sentence clarifies the meaning behind the first. As a very obvious example, we wouldn’t use the teachings of the past in regards to the plurality of wives and then apply those teachings to then excuse the practice of polygamy today rather than listening to and obeying the current prophet.

Polygamy practiced in the past=OK

Polygamy practiced in the present=not OK.

It doesn’t seem to be rocket science.

Regards,
MG

What do you do when people wish to use the words of the current prophet to dismiss the words of the current prophet? I suppose that'd be like using Jesus' supposed words to dismiss his words in other contexts. For instance, i think it wasn't too long ago I had commented how the New Testament Jesus, as quoted in the gospels send out mixed messages, as does the whole Bible. At one point Jesus said to hate your father and mother, and another time he said to love your enemies. So hate those who are close to you, and love those who are opposed to you. There's nothing explicitly contradictory there, but certainly this causes mixed messaging (although I think whoever I was speaking to thought Jesus didn't really mean what he said).

So what do we do about, say the LGBTQ family policy that was enacted then retracted, each claiming to be from God?

[MG 2.0]

What do you do when people wish to use the words of the current prophet to dismiss the words of the current prophet?

The opening post was concerned with this statement made in conference:

Unlike vintage comic books and classic cars, prophetic teachings do not become more valuable with age. That is why we should not seek to use the words of past prophets to dismiss the teachings of living prophets.

Are you moving the goalposts?

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

What do you do when people wish to use the words of the current prophet to dismiss the words of the current prophet?

The opening post was concerned with this statement made in conference:

Unlike vintage comic books and classic cars, prophetic teachings do not become more valuable with age. That is why we should not seek to use the words of past prophets to dismiss the teachings of living prophets.

Are you moving the goalposts?

Regards,
MG

I do wonder why you have never answered a question I've put to you, MG. This is a dodge. But that's ok. I've grown accustomed to it. I've written a post defending the thought expressed in the quotation you offered. This was simply a question wondering what a believer should do or does with this apparent contradiction. Is there a way to see it as a non-contradiction? or Would you say there may very well be contradiction even within the span of one prophet's reign?

[MG 2.0]

So what do we do about, say the LGBTQ family policy that was enacted then retracted, each claiming to be from God?

We go with the update. Prophets in this dispensation have been known to be editors as well as revelators.

It started with Joseph.

Some folks have a difficult time with that. It may have something to do with a concept I’ve brought up before. The silver platter God vs. the collaborative God. Which one you believe in makes all the difference.

Now, I’d actually be interested in why folks are in a conniption fit over the quote in the opening post of this thread. I’m not seeing what the problem/concern is.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

So what do we do about, say the LGBTQ family policy that was enacted then retracted, each claiming to be from God?

We go with the update. Prophets in this dispensation have been known to be editors as well as revelators.

It started with Joseph.

Some folks have a difficult time with that. It may have something to do with a concept I’ve brought up before. The silver platter God vs. the collaborative God. Which one you believe in makes all the difference.

Now, I’d actually be interested in why folks are in a conniption fit over the quote in the opening post of this thread. I’m not seeing what the problem/concern is.

Regards,
MG

What I mean by "What do we do with...?" is how do we reconcile the apparent contradiction, as in each case God was said to be the one who was the source of the revelation. Nelson said, God revealed the policy, then some short time later, it was God who reversed it. One wonders if God knows what he's doing. Or if the prophets are telling the truth.

Of course, this is par for the course when it comes to the Christian relgiion generally, though. As I originally pointed out....in one place Jesus commanded to hate father and mother...and yet he also told his followers to love their enemies. Its certainly not as if God is not finicky, as tradition and scripture define Him, nor contradictory, nor full of mixed messages, perhaps He's designed to confuse people?

I don't have the problem with the quote in the OP, as I already pointed out, so you can see my response on that above somewhere.

[sock puppet]

From the pulpit of April 2023 GC, Elder Allen D. Haynie said,

The second sentence clarifies the meaning behind the first. As a very obvious example, we wouldn’t use the teachings of the past in regards to the plurality of wives and then apply those teachings to then excuse the practice of polygamy today rather than listening to and obeying the current prophet.

Polygamy practiced in the past=OK

Polygamy practiced in the present=not OK.

It doesn’t seem to be rocket science.

Regards,
MG

Hey, MG 2.0--so have you discarded all your "scriptures"--just past prophetic statements? Of no value, according to the Brethren, April 2023.