False Prophets Vs. True Prophets

[Outshined]

One example:

3 Ne. 12:22, That verse, taken almost verbatim from the King James Version of Matthew 5:22 except for the deletion of the words "without a cause," reads:

But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire (3 Ne. 12:22).

The use of the Aramaic word Raca [raka], a term of opprobrium, would be meaningless to New World people who are depicted as speaking either Hebrew or reformed Egyptian. A further disparity lies in the phrase "shall be in danger of the council." In the Gospel account the reference is to the Jewish governing body, the Sanhedrin, a term which would have no historical point of reference in a New World context.

As I said on the other thread, if you're going to cut and paste from other people's work, give them the credit. Plagiarism is not acceptable.

You took this from an anti-Mormon site, which does not surprise me. Motive is everything.

[Outshined]

The example used at your first link is how Jonah said that Niviah would be destroyed in 40 days,

Of course they repented, and were spared.

The prophecy didn't say anything about repenting; it said in forty days they would be destroyed. Period. Nice try though; seems you're willing to bend more when defending your own beliefs...

It is a false prophecy.

...U.S. Government still stands.

They didn't "repent"

Actually they did; a formal apology was offered, which counts nicely as repentance.

How would you determine who is a true prophet and who is false?

You said:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

Absolutely a true prophet.

But you didn't say why....

His many fulfilled prophecies, for starters.

What! just because I can't spell half the words in there you think copied and pasted it?!

I know where you got it. Do I need to PM you the link to the page you stole it from? It's on IRR.

I'm not allowed to link to "anti-mormon" sites, like you can link to light planet.

You can at least give credit to the real researchers instead of just taking their work as your own. You could stand to spend some time on lightplanet; you might gain some perspective on what you're trying so desperately to "disprove".

I'd love it if you tried to answer the question instead of "exposeing" that I didn't come up with it my self!

I didn't see you ask a question.

EDIT: What the hey?... The post I was responding to is gone...

[JoshuaFKon]

Actually they did; a formal apology was offered, which counts nicely as repentance.

love to see a link for that

His many fulfilled prophecies, for starters.

such as....

I know where you got it. Do I need to PM you the link to the page you stole it from? It's on IRR.

yup. (one of my favorite sites) obviously you don't understand the concept of "sarcasm"

I didn't see you ask a question.

The one from IRR, (it was edited out)

Josh B)

[Outshined]

Now as to the accusation Josh provided from the anti site which makes an issue of 3 Nephi 12:22. Some scholars have speculated that when Joseph Smith saw the passage before him on the gold plates and recognized it as the same as a known passage of scripture he simply adopted the more familiar language of the KJV in his translation.

We then assume that it is the retelling of an almost identical sermon in the New World which had already been delivered in the Old World and had been preserved in Matthew.

It is one of the less impressive arguments against the BOM in my opinion.

Actually they did; a formal apology was offered, which counts nicely as repentance.

love to see a link for that

Psst! Check the links! It's in there.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

His many fulfilled prophecies, for starters.

such as....

I can see you have yet to actually read the links I gave you, just as with the previous example. Typical.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

I know where you got it. Do I need to PM you the link to the page you stole it from? It's on IRR.

yup. (one of my favorite sites)

How sad.

[JoshuaFKon]

Now as to the accusation Josh provided from the anti site which makes an issue of 3 Nephi 12:22. Some scholars have speculated that when Joseph Smith saw the passage before him on the gold plates and recognized it as the same as a known passage of scripture he simply adopted the more familiar language of the KJV in his translation.

(1) Why would he copy from the KJV instead of relying on revelation?

We then assume that it is the retelling of an almost identical sermon in the New World which had already been delivered in the Old World and had been preserved in Matthew.

Using a word (raca) that we don't really understand today, and refering to the Jewish Sanhedrin?

How strange.

Josh B)

[Outshined]

(1) Why would he copy from the KJV instead of relying on revelation?

Why not, if the message was the same?

Using a word (raca) that we don't really understand today, and refering to the Jewish Sanhedrin?

It's in my Bible concordances. It a word meaning 'spit', and is a term of contempt. And yes, why not?

I don't expect you to get it, or even to try, as you've proven that your only interest is in "disproving" LDS beliefs, nothing more.

Try reading more than one viewpoint.

As I've said, you'd have more respect here if you put half as much effort into gaining an understaning of LDS beliefs as you do trying to "disprove" them...

You still haven't explained why Jonah's prophecy was not worded to include repentance. If it was conditional, should it not say that it is? You would certainly hold LDS revelation to such a standard, would you not?

And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

[Ray]

Ray,

I apprcved this post, but as you know, the members will say he is a true prophet and the rest won't.

Thank you, Strawberry.

I'm thanking you for posting it anyway.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people who say something like:

"I don't believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God..."

... especially if they give me a reason, or reasons...

... because people who say that are basically saying THEY DO NOT BELIEVE he was.

And even if they don't say "this is what I believe" they are still basically saying that anyway.

And btw, while I DO believe that he was...

I DO believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God...

I still think we all should be able to choose whether we want to believe it.

And I especially appreciate it when people give me a reason, or reasons, for what they do or don't believe, because I can then know the reason, or reasons, why they do or don't believe what they've chosen to believe or not believe.

But it is not and it never has been my intent to make people believe what I believe... even when I sometimes give the reason(s) why I do or don't believe whatever I've chosen to believe...

... and I do have my reasons for believing.

[Outshined]

And btw, while I DO believe that he was...

I DO believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God...

I still think we all should be able to choose whether we want to believe it.

And I especially appreciate it when people give me a reason, or reasons, for what they do or don't believe, because I can then know the reason, or reasons, why they do or don't believe what they've chosen to believe or not believe.

But it is not and it never has been my intent to make people believe what I believe... even when I sometimes give the reason(s) why I do or don't believe whatever I've chosen to believe...

... and I do have my reasons for believing.

Nicely put, Ray. Though the repetition of the word "believe" was starting to make me dizzy.

[Ray]

Thank you. I did that on purpose. :)

[Princess3dward]

I love listening to the words of PC, even though he is from another faith, because I can hear from whom he has been mentored. :)

Me too!

Nicely put, Ray. Though the repetition of the word "believe" was starting to make me dizzy.

Ya..Me too again....

[prisonchaplain]

Ray,

I apprcved this post, but as you know, the members will say he is a true prophet and the rest won't.

This is generally true. Perhaps what Ray is getting at is whether those of us that are unable to affirm that Joseph Smith was a true prophet believe he was a false prophet, a liar, or perhaps delusional, or led astray by a deceiving spirit, or whether we believe he was a good guy who may have had some spiritual insight, but who just wasn't a prophet?

Is that what you're after Ray?

I hope you're not simply setting up an unnecessary "us vs. them" scenario.

<div class='quotemain'>

The example used at your first link is how Jonah said that Niviah would be destroyed in 40 days,

Of course they repented, and were spared.

The prophecy didn't say anything about repenting; it said in forty days they would be destroyed. Period. Nice try though; seems you're willing to bend more when defending your own beliefs...

It is a false prophecy.

I'm ignoring the over-arching topic, and just focusing on this accusation. Jonah was no false prophet. I've heard Jehovah's Witnesses use this tact to justify their many prophecies about Jesus' return and the impending Armageddon, and it's a ridiculous interpretation meant to justify their own false prophecies.

The text may not spell-out Jonah's proviso that if they repent they would not be destroyed. Indeed, he may not have given it. But such is always implied, or at least held as a hope for those who receive a warning from God. "Perhaps, if we repent, God will have mercy on us."

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Ray,

I apprcved this post, but as you know, the members will say he is a true prophet and the rest won't.

This is generally true. Perhaps what Ray is getting at is whether those of us that are unable to affirm that Joseph Smith was a true prophet believe he was a false prophet, a liar, or perhaps delusional, or led astray by a deceiving spirit, or whether we believe he was a good guy who may have had some spiritual insight, but who just wasn't a prophet?

Is that what you're after Ray?

I hope you're not simply setting up an unnecessary "us vs. them" scenario.

Please read what I’m saying while in your heart praying,

Or you may see things that really aren’t there.

And please try to understand what I'm actually saying.

That's what I try to do when you share.

I am simply trying to say there are prophets among us,

Some are true… and some are false… so beware,

And when you read or listen please don’t stir up a fuss,

I am just sharing what I think. Do you care?

[prisonchaplain]

Ray, you never cease to amaze. :-)

[Outshined]

I'm ignoring the over-arching topic, and just focusing on this accusation. Jonah was no false prophet. I've heard Jehovah's Witnesses use this tact to justify their many prophecies about Jesus' return and the impending Armageddon, and it's a ridiculous interpretation meant to justify their own false prophecies.

The text may not spell-out Jonah's proviso that if they repent they would not be destroyed. Indeed, he may not have given it. But such is always implied, or at least held as a hope for those who receive a warning from God. "Perhaps, if we repent, God will have mercy on us."

I agree with you of course PC; Jonah was certainly a prophet . The point I was making, and that you probably understand, is that Josh and others make blanket statements about "a prophecy that does not come true makes that prophet false" in an attempt to discredit Joseph Smith. They then have difficulty reconciling that with Jonah's prophecy technically not coming to pass. When they try to make it black and white to prove that JS was a "false prophet", they place themselves in a tight spot with similar Biblical situations. They can't have it both ways.

Latter-day Saints allow for changes that may make the outcome different, as with Jonah. As Jonah's prophecy did not have to spell out the details, why should JS be held to a different standard?

[Traveler]

I will add one more thought. A true prophet (or teacher) will say, act and behave as the L-rd would if he was there instead of the prophet or teacher. This is the essence of taking upon one's self the "Name" of G-d. Everyone has an opinion - but when we pretend our opinions are the opinions of G-d we are in essence pretending to be G-d.

I think this is why Jesus indicated that some men that did things in the "Name" of the L-rd would not be recognized.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Latter-day Saints allow for changes that may make the outcome different, as with Jonah. As Jonah's prophecy did not have to spell out the details, why should JS be held to a different standard?

I believe this point was brought up recently, but it bares repeating: it's a matter of trust. If you trust that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then you will give great lee-way to unfulfilled, or seemingly wrong prophecies he may have given. If you are convinced that he was not who he claimed to be, then any missed nuance will be seen as condemning evidence.

For a nuetral example, do a quick search on "The Kansas City Prophets." Fundamentalists websites will castigates them as wolves in sheeps clothing. Charismatic sites will have much more nuanced assessments.

[Outshined]

it's a matter of trust. If you trust that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then you will give great lee-way to unfulfilled, or seemingly wrong prophecies he may have given. If you are convinced that he was not who he claimed to be, then any missed nuance will be seen as condemning evidence.

Certainly, as we see with Jonah and other Biblical prophets.

That's the point; we have a non-LDS telling us that JS is a false prophet, while he makes allowances for the ones he believes in. B)

[Dr T]

Have there been any prophecys that have not been fulfilled on either side of this debate that are without question (unable to be denied)?

Just curious.

[Outshined]

Have there been any prophecys that have not been fulfilled on either side of this debate that are without question (unable to be denied)?

Just curious.

Doubtful. Atheists believe that Biblical prophecies such as Jonah's are undeniably false, and critics of the LDS Church point to prophecies of JS that they think are false.

Both can be explained satisfactorily by believers, at least to other believers...a true critic will not be convinced.