I haven't heard of this term until most recently, and I have heard it a lot. A 'Living' Gospel.

During a recent discussion with a friend of mine, he spelled it out to me as I raised objections about many issues and contradictions of the church.

He said: "That with a living prophet, we have a living gospel. A gospel that can be changed with the needs of the church. What the Bible says is irrelevant. What the BoM says is irrelevant. What the D&C and PoGP say is irrelevant. What a prophet said last year is irrelevant.

The ONLY thing that matters is what is the living prophet is saying right now. The prophet is allowed to contradict everything because he is the current prophet, and thus this makes ALL of your arguments invalid.

The question is, do you believe in a living prophet or not?"

This term... "living gospel" is starting to pop up everywhere... it basically means that every argument that you can make against the church doesn't matter because the gospel is always changing.

How do you counter this argument?

I think there was a Sunday School manual from 30 or 40 or more years ago called "The Living Gospel". The concept is not new, though it may be getting more airplay lately.

The attitude that only the latest spewing of Da Profit counts for anything is the Mormon version of "we have always been at war with Eastasia".

"How do you counter this argument?"

Why - that's funny-odd!
Jim Jones and David Koresh said precisely the same thing - heck of a coincidence, no?

So apparently, whatever the living prophet says can countermand...you know...Jesus.

Snickers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question is, do you believe in a living
> prophet or not?"

Not.

'Cause they have zero evidence to show they're "prophets," or that anything they say came from any "god."

So there's no reason to believe them. None.

Kinda funny coming from a Mormon, the whole idea of a LIVING Gospel.

It's not like they believe in a LIVING Constitution, ya know?

Oddly, one of the main definitions of "living" when you look it up is, "a way to earn money."


The Mormon gospel is "living: which sounds good --except it's on life support in the ICU.

The church is alive! But so was Maggie the cat.

I am going to preface this by saying I am an atheist.

The best argument against "living gospel" is to use their own teachings. It's helpful to know what is taught. Most don't even know their own religion. I would use the scriptures to argue against their naivete.

Teach them what "living" means. Not only is "living" a way to earn money but it also means the pursuit of a lifestyle.

"I understand, you are pursuing a lifestyle.That doesn't mean that what has been said in the past is irrelevant. After all, the scriptures say-

Mormon 9:9
For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

So, are you saying God didn't know what he talking about 200 years ago? Are you saying he is an idiot?

Why don't you figure out what "living gospel" means, then get back to me."

If you turn it on them, more likely than not, they won't do the research. The "living gospel" topic or argument, with you, may not be brought up again. After all, you are asking them to do some work.

Or, if you feel bold enough you can take this route....

"The LDS church started out as a cult and what the men running the church are trying to do is mainstream it. They are trying to align themselves with major religions."


The crux of it all is that the LDS church needs more people to believe it. The more people that believe, the more money they receive. The more customers(members) you have buying your product(beliefs), the more money you have coming in. That's how you keep a business going.

What your friend calls "a living gospel" sounds more like a bunch of assholes making things up to keep themselves in power.

That argument your friend made (at least from what I can tell) sounds like he's trying to shore up his shelf instead of look at the problems with the church. Either give him time or use the points emanon posted.

Any belief system that is so flexible and fickle that it ends up contradicting its own claims and doctrines on a regular basis is nothing but a glorified game of "Simon Says".

If the all-powerful God was personally sitting in the big corner office in the COB issuing capricious edicts, you would have to respect the edicts simply because the all-powerful God can instantly make you miserable if you don't. (You respect the power, not the character of the all-powerful God.)

But if it's just a bunch of old, mortal humans in suits and ties claiming that they're speaking for God based on whatever pops into their head and "feels right" AND they also reserve the right to change their minds and contradict each other and their predecessors whenever it feels right, you can just laugh at it and walk away. There is no justification for buying into that kind of pointless confusion.

Your friend is essentially admitting that it's an insane cult that cannot be relied upon to tell the truth about anything. Your friend is a nihilist. If your friend's view is correct, holding on to the iron rod of the "Gospel" is no different from holding on to a blob of jello.

> Any belief system that is so flexible and fickle that it ends up contradicting its own claims and doctrines on a regular basis is nothing but a glorified game of "Simon Says".


Hahaha! Love it!

There ain't no gospel!

When you ask them "what about when BY said there were men on the moon?" they say "oh he was just speaking as a man, not as a prophet." So how do you know if a prophet is speaking as a man or a prophet? Wasn't it Bruce R McDonkey who said if the prophet says something that contradicts written scripture he's speaking as a man? I dunno, who can keep mormons' BS straight?

True prophets (if there ever were such a thing) would earn trust, as their words would prove true over time, consistently.

Mormonism has failed to earn trust over time. The words of Mormon prophets have to continually be excused or swept under the rug. As a result, the leaders of the LSD Church prefer to demand faith instead of doing the hard work of earning trust. Their gullible followers make it too easy for them.

Since the GAs are so old, I’d call it “The barely living gospel”.

If you can't believe everything they say, why would you believe anything they say?

Snickers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do you counter this argument?

By taking your vitamins.

Is there eternal truth? Is one thing is true at one time and another thing is true later? Was the age of the earth 7,000 years old in 1972 when the church taught that adamantly as doctrine? No. These are not situations of changing circumstances, but declarations of what is or is not, what is right and what is wrong that are supposed to transcend circumstance.

Of course, there are times in life when changing circumstances dictate another course of action. A government's best economic policy option is different when unemployment is 15% and the economy is shrinking vs. when unemployment is 4% with steady growth. A rigid eternal truth type view of economics can be harmful in such circumstances. Lying is generally considered wrong, but not if you are lying to the SS about the 15 Jews hiding in your barn. Ok, I understand all that.

But with the LDS Church it is not just stuff where the LDS Church is responding to changing circumstances in the management of their organization. They are usually responding to social pressures and changing norms, or the advance of scientific knowledge when the leaders change their minds. These are profound moral, ethical and factual questions. What is the value of having a prophet, who has to be dragged kicking and screaming 15 years too late to conclusions that most thoughtful people arrived at much earlier? Why go through the mental gymnastics of trying to defend something indefensible for decades--only to have them change their minds in 20 or 30 years? What good did that obedience do you? If they change their mind like that, why not just follow the apostate who was excommunicated for teaching the new eternal truth--but just too early? Was the apostate more in tune with God's spirit?

Think about someone who disagreed with the LDS doctrine on race in 1975 and openly derided those teachings. They may have been excommunicated. Would that be justified? Would such a person lose their eternal salvation?

A church should be more than just a collection of dopes following whatever the most recent guy in charge says to do. Otherwise it is a cult. what if the prophet asks a member to do something unreasonable? What stops them under a "living gospel" paradigm?

Under the "living gospel" model, if the prophet says to murder someone, then is it ok? What if the living prophet says you need to take a 2nd or 3rd or 76th wife? What if the next living prophet tells you to divorce your plural wives? Talk about being tossed on the waves!

This is a slimy way out when Mormons are losing the argument about the Book of Abraham or something Joseph Smith did or said and desperately looking for the ejection handle. But the implications are profound, because Mormons making that argument are setting themselves up to give unquestioning loyalty to their current leader. That is profoundly more dangerous than believing in the Book of Mormon, angel Moroni and families can be together forever. Don't let them off the hook that easily.

I absolutely agree with all of your well thought out points.

It is just so frustrating to me that I can't bring up anything wrong with the church at all because they just whip out the 'living doctrine' excuse and that is the absolute excuse that covers everything you can throw at them.

I always thought that "I prayed about it, and it's true" excuse was the worst... not anymore, now it's the 'living gospel' excuse.

The prophet can change anything at any time, on a whim, without notice, and THAT is the new gospel, never to be questioned. That reminds me of Jehovah Witnesses and their 'new light' that they receive from time to time.

grab a beer and watch what ever major league sports game is on at the time.....

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

How can anyone be expected to believe claims of a "living prophet" when the Book of Mormon is blatantly false.

Mormons are nuts.