Questionable Prophesies by Joseph Smith

[Trout]

* Saints to gather to Independence, Mo. and build Temple (D&C 84)
No longer teach the gathering and temple never built.

* Zion (Independence, Mo.) can not fall (D&C 97:19)
Mormons driven out.

* Army to redeem Zion (Independence, MO) (D&C 103)
Mission unsuccessful. V.30-34 God seems to be unsure about how large an army to raise.

* Civil War Prophecy (D&C 87)
England and other nations did not join in.

* United Order (D&C 104)
V.1 Commanded as everlasting order; V.48 & 53 dissolved and reorganized.

* Riches of Salem to pay church debt (D&C 111)
No riches found, debts not paid

* Apostle Patten to go on mission in Spring 1839 (D&C 114)
He was shot in Oct. of 1838. Wouldn't God have known he was going to die before the next spring?

* New gathering place and temple in Far West (D&C 115)
LDS driven out, never built the temple.

* Build a temple in Nauvoo and house for Smiths (D&C 124)
Temple and house not completed

* Christ to return in 1890-1891 period (D&C 130:14-15)
Christ did not return.

[Amazing Rando]

Hey Trout, I don't think you'll have anyone dispute these! We haven't had any actual Mormons on these boards as far back as I can remember! :whistle:

[Xavier]

John Powell was a mormon and sometimes speaks for his past beliefs... :wink:

JPHolding has also published a book on Mormonism... Here's his look at Smith's prophecy with LDS feedback... http://www.tektonics.org/josproph.html

Yours,
Xavier

:xavier:

[Trout]

Hey Trout, I don't think you'll have anyone dispute these! We haven't had any actual Mormons on these boards as far back as I can remember! :whistle:

I'm trolling my friend, I have my line set into the deep waters of the world wide web.

[Xavier]

I'm trolling my friend, I have my line set into the deep waters of the world wide web.
Calling all LDS Apologists... Calling all LDS Apologists....

DEFEND YOUR FAITH!!!!!!!!

[Trout]

Calling all LDS Apologists... Calling all LDS Apologists....

DEFEND YOUR FAITH!!!!!!!!


To borrow a line from Jaws, "We're gonna need a bigger boat"

[Amazing Rando]

To borrow a line from Jaws, "We're gonna need a bigger boat"

I'd love for some actual Mormons to show up. We can mail them a complementary copy of JPH's book!

[Xavier]

I'd love for some actual Mormons to show up. We can mail them a complementary copy of JPH's book!
If you can find one who will read it, I'll read the Book of Mormon... <shudder>

[Xmansmommy]

Wow! We might actually get a Mormon or two who'll sign up just to make you make good on that :x:. :teeth:

[Xavier]

Bring em on... :xavier:

[Xmansmommy]

:thumb: I'd invite some personally, but the ones I know IRL don't talk to me anymore. :frown: And the one or two I know on Paltalk wouldn't possibly venture out beyond the comfort of the LDS teachings. :nsm:

[Dave G]

:thumb: I'd invite some personally, but the ones I know IRL don't talk to me anymore. :frown: And the one or two I know on Paltalk wouldn't possibly venture out beyond the comfort of the LDS teachings. :nsm:
I'm not sure what to say to people who think the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas are descended from the Israelites.

[John Powell]

POWELL (the atheist):
First, here is just one of many "didn't happen" Biblical prophecies to somewhat balance the playing field, to show that if Mormons have a problem with failed prophecies it wasn't something that started with them, but it's something they borrowed from the Bible.

Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Tyre (Ezek 26). Didn't happen.

If Troutk13 can answer this "didn't happen" Biblical prophecy about Tyre then he would be in a more justified position to criticize Mormon prophecies that "didn't happen." Let him show reason to believe it did happen and I will show reason to believe it didn't.


* Saints to gather to Independence, Mo. and build Temple (D&C 84)
No longer teach the gathering and temple never built.


JOHN MORMON (my former believing self):
If they are worthy. Mormons do still teach the gathering to that area, just not right now. For later maybe.

According to Jonah, the city of Nineveh was to be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3). Didn't happen.

According to God, Saul to come down and the men of Keilah to turn David in (1 Sam 23). Didn't happen.

Prophecies are contingent things. Not absolute things.


* Zion (Independence, Mo.) can not fall (D&C 97:19)
Mormons driven out.


JOHN MORMON:
Misquote. God isn't claiming Zion can't fail, but certain nations will claim it.


* Army to redeem Zion (Independence, MO) (D&C 103)
Mission unsuccessful. V.30-34 God seems to be unsure about how large an army to raise.


JOHN MORMON:
Read v. 5. It's a contingent promise.

Don't you remember Abraham arguing with God about how many good people there needed to be in Sodom and Gomorrah before it was justified to destroy those cities (Gen 18)? Would you say God doesn't know how many it takes? Don't you remember Gideon ordered to reduce the number of soldiers, but God's method didn't work well enough the first time (Judge 7)? Would you say God didn't know that his method wouldn't reduce the number sufficiently the first time?

God does not know the future. People have free will.


* Civil War Prophecy (D&C 87)
England and other nations did not join in.


JOHN MORMON:
To some extent they did. Some things are contingent upon what other people do.


* United Order (D&C 104)
V.1 Commanded as everlasting order; V.48 & 53 dissolved and reorganized.


JOHN MORMON:
Ignorance of Mormon terminology. Words like "everlasting" and "eternal" are synonyms for "God" (D&C 19:10-12). They don't necessarily mean the thing will happen for ever, but that they have a divine origin. People have free will. God must accommodate.


* Riches of Salem to pay church debt (D&C 111)
No riches found, debts not paid


JOHN MORMON:
Read v. 11. Apparently, they weren't ready. God's promises are contingent on our obedience. God does not know the future. We have free will.


* Apostle Patten to go on mission in Spring 1839 (D&C 114)
He was shot in Oct. of 1838. Wouldn't God have known he was going to die before the next spring?


JOHN MORMON:
God does not know the future. We have free will. The point was that Patten was obeying God. Whether he died as a missionary or beforehand, he would be rewarded for his obedience.

Jesus promised that some of those listening to his sermon would see His second coming (Matt 16:28), but it didn't happen. The early Christians were not sufficiently obedient, so Jesus had to postpone His return for several thousand years.


* New gathering place and temple in Far West (D&C 115)
LDS driven out, never built the temple.


JOHN MORMON:
These things are contingent upon the worthiness of the saints.


* Build a temple in Nauvoo and house for Smiths (D&C 124)
Temple and house not completed


JOHN MORMON:
These things are contingent upon the worthiness of the Church.


* Christ to return in 1890-1891 period (D&C 130:14-15)
Christ did not return.


JOHN MORMON:
Misquote. It was a promise if Joseph lived to be that old.

POWELL (the atheist):
Joseph Smith was no dummy. He surely recognized that if the Bible could make prophecies that were not fulfilled then He could risk doing the same thing. He surely expected that the kind of apologetics that is used to justify the Bible's failures could be used to justify his own failures.

John Powell

[Trout]

POWELL (the atheist):
First, here is just one of many "didn't happen" Biblical prophecies to somewhat balance the playing field, to show that if Mormons have a problem with failed prophecies it wasn't something that started with them, but it's something they borrowed from the Bible.

Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Tyre (Ezek 26). Didn't happen.

If Troutk13 can answer this "didn't happen" Biblical prophecy about Tyre then he would be in a more justified position to criticize Mormon prophecies that "didn't happen." Let him show reason to believe it did happen and I will show reason to believe it didn't.

Notice that troutk13 named the thread, "Questionable Prophesies",in doing so he left open the idea that satisfying answers are highly subjective in such a dialogue. (Why are we talking about troutk in the third person?)

With that in mind, I wonder how satisfied JP is with the answers that JM gave to the initial query? If JP is happy with them then it should make the biblical apologist's job quite easy, if JP isn't satisfied with the answers given, then what was his point?



POWELL (the atheist):
Joseph Smith was no dummy. He surely recognized that if the Bible could make prophecies that were not fulfilled then He could risk doing the same thing. He surely expected that the kind of apologetics that is used to justify the Bible's failures could be used to justify his own failures.

John Powell

The more I read about Joseph Smith the more I admire many of his qualities. I don't however agree with you in your assessment of Joseph's knowledge of the Bible's so-called failures. I am of the opinion that he was the consumate con artist, able by his charisma in conjunction with his quick mind and verbal skills to convince just about anyone of just about anything.

[John Powell]

POWELL (the atheist):
First, here is just one of many "didn't happen" Biblical prophecies to somewhat balance the playing field, to show that if Mormons have a problem with failed prophecies it wasn't something that started with them, but it's something they borrowed from the Bible.

Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Tyre (Ezek 26). Didn't happen.

If Troutk13 can answer this "didn't happen" Biblical prophecy about Tyre then he would be in a more justified position to criticize Mormon prophecies that "didn't happen." Let him show reason to believe it did happen and I will show reason to believe it didn't.

TROUTK13:
Notice that troutk13 named the thread, "Questionable Prophesies",in doing so he left open the idea that satisfying answers are highly subjective in such a dialogue. (Why are we talking about troutk in the third person?)

With that in mind, I wonder how satisfied JP is with the answers that JM gave to the initial query? If JP is happy with them then it should make the biblical apologist's job quite easy, if JP isn't satisfied with the answers given, then what was his point?


POWELL:
Powell needs to take the sidelines in this section of TWEB.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, Troutk13, you seem to think that when God reveals a prophecy then it's going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts. Is that your position?

POWELL (the atheist):
Joseph Smith was no dummy. He surely recognized that if the Bible could make prophecies that were not fulfilled then He could risk doing the same thing. He surely expected that the kind of apologetics that is used to justify the Bible's failures could be used to justify his own failures.

John Powell

TROUTKE:
The more I read about Joseph Smith the more I admire many of his qualities. I don't however agree with you in your assessment of Joseph's knowledge of the Bible's so-called failures. I am of the opinion that he was the consumate con artist, able by his charisma in conjunction with his quick mind and verbal skills to convince just about anyone of just about anything.


JOHN MORMON:
If you sincerely read the Book of Mormon you may find uncanny explanations for your situation. Then perhaps you'll think higher of the Prophet.

John Powell

[Trout]

POWELL:
Powell needs to take the sidelines in this section of TWEB.

So then can I assume that your explanations wouldn't satisfy JP?


JOHN MORMON:
Ok, Troutk13, you seem to think that when God reveals a prophecy then it's going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts. Is that your position?


No, the position from which I started has been that Joseph Smith issued some questionable prophesies. And I recognize the fact that you would like to switch the burden of proof to the Bible and it's prophesies. But since Joseph Smith and the BOM are the new kids on the block so to speak, I'd like to know why I should believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.



JOHN MORMON:
If you sincerely read the Book of Mormon you may find uncanny explanations for your situation. Then perhaps you'll think higher of the Prophet.

John Powell

I have read the BOM. And whether or not I find explanations that satisfy my particular subjective tastes does not necessarily lend truthfulness to the BOM.

[Leroy]

JOHN MORMON:
If you sincerely read the Book of Mormon you may find uncanny explanations for your situation. Then perhaps you'll think higher of the Prophet.

John Powell

JM,

I found this not to be the case.

one of the reasons is, the Book of Mormon Tells us that Lehi "dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days," (1 Nephi 1:4) in about 600 B.C. and was a prophet of God from the tribe of Manasseh. Yet we find that his son, Nephi, tells us that his father spoke in a strange language.

BOM 1 Nephi 1:2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians

No prophet of God would have used a corrupt language to convey God's message at this period in History. ( the Egyptian language was very corrupt from an idol worshipping people who had persecuted the children of Israel)

this is a prophets reaction to use of a mixed and corrupt language Neh. 13:23-25 In those days I also saw that the Jews had married women from Ashdod, Ammon {and} Moab.
As for their children, half spoke in the language of Ashdod, and none of them was able to speak the language of Judah, but the language of his own people.
So I contended with them and cursed them and struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take of their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
This has replies to both TROUTK13 and LEROY.

TO TROUTK13:

POWELL:
Powell needs to take the sidelines in this section of TWEB.

TROUTK13:
So then can I assume that your explanations wouldn't satisfy JP?


POWELL:
Sure. JP is an atheist. He does not believe Mormonism anymore. He does, however, sometimes see that certain criticisms by Christians are unfounded.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, Troutk13, you seem to think that when God reveals a prophecy then it's going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts. Is that your position?

TROUTK13:
No, the position from which I started has been that Joseph Smith issued some questionable prophesies. And I recognize the fact that you would like to switch the burden of proof to the Bible and it's prophesies. But since Joseph Smith and the BOM are the new kids on the block so to speak, I'd like to know why I should believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, some of the Biblical prophets issued "questionable prophecies" too if you think such things are what WILL happen. No ifs, ands, or buts.

You should believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God for similar reasons that you believe that those referred to in the Bible were prophets. By their fruits you shall know them. The Book of Mormon is a "fruit" of Joseph Smith. If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph was a prophet.


7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.


JOHN MORMON:
Since God is doing important things these days, He surely needs prophets to let the rest of us know. Whether Joseph Smith was such a person should be the question, not that he couldn't be a prophet because there are no prophets in these latter days.

Other than the mere fact that their names appear in the Bible, Troutk13, why do you believe those mentioned in the Bible were prophets of God, inspired by God to speak and write God's Word?

JOHN MORMON:
If you sincerely read the Book of Mormon you may find uncanny explanations for your situation. Then perhaps you'll think higher of the Prophet.

John Powell

TROUTK13:
I have read the BOM. And whether or not I find explanations that satisfy my particular subjective tastes does not necessarily lend truthfulness to the BOM.


JOHN MORMON:
But, Troutk13, you considered the fact that the Bible did that sort of thing for you as evidence of the Bible's truthfulness. If the Book of Mormon does the same sort of thing for you, why won't you treat it similarly?

TO LEROY:

JOHN MORMON:
If you sincerely read the Book of Mormon you may find uncanny explanations for your situation. Then perhaps you'll think higher of the Prophet.

John Powell

LEROY:
JM,
I found this not to be the case.

one of the reasons is, the Book of Mormon Tells us that Lehi "dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days," (1 Nephi 1:4) in about 600 B.C. and was a prophet of God from the tribe of Manasseh. Yet we find that his son, Nephi, tells us that his father spoke in a strange language.


Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians


LEROY:
No prophet of God would have used a corrupt language to convey God's message at this period in History.


JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Leroy. (sarcasm)

When Joseph interpreted Pharoah's dream, did he do so in the corrupt language of the Egyptians that "No prophet of God would have used . . . to convey God's message" or did he speak to Pharaoh in Hebrew?

When Moses conveyed God's message to Pharaoh, did he do so in Egyptian or Hebrew?

When Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream did he do so in Babylonian or Hebrew or what?

When Adam and his descendants recorded their history did they do so in Hebrew or some other language?

Was the New Testament originally written in Greek or Hebrew or what?

God is not constrained to reveal things only in Hebrew, Leroy. God can reveal in just about any language, corrupt or otherwise.


( the Egyptian language was very corrupt from an idol worshipping people who had persecuted the children of Israel)

this is a prophets reaction to use of a mixed and corrupt language

In those days I also saw that the Jews had married women from Ashdod, Ammon {and} Moab.

As for their children, half spoke in the language of Ashdod, and none of them was able to speak the language of Judah, but the language of his own people.

So I contended with them and cursed them and struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take of their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.



JOHN MORMON:
They weren't cursed by Nehemiah for speaking non-Jewish languages, Leroy, but for being unable to ALSO speak the Jewish tongue. It's like criticizing Latin American kids in the United States, NOT for learning English, but FOR NOT also learning Spanish.

Nehemiah's real gripe is that they were marrying outsiders that were pulling them away from their Jewish traditions, not that they knew how to speak non-Jewish languages.

God is not unhappy with people being bilingual or more. Or, do you think He is? Doesn't God fluently speak more than just Hebrew?

John Powell

[Trout]

POWELL:
TO TROUTK13:
POWELL:
Sure. JP is an atheist. He does not believe Mormonism anymore. He does, however, sometimes see that certain criticisms by Christians are unfounded.
So JP thinks that the claims made by Christians regarding the prophesies of Joseph Smith are unfounded?

Or would it be fair for the Christian to scrutinize the prophesies of Joseph Smith only as critically as he does the claims of the Bible? If we were to use that standard I think we'd find the Bible to be far more reliable than the BOM.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, some of the Biblical prophets issued "questionable prophecies" too if you think such things are what WILL happen. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Again, "questionable" is an ambiguous term, and what might satisfy JM, wouldn't necessarily satisfy JP or Jew Powell. (How many more personalities are in there?) In my study, I've yet to come across a problem with the Bible that there hasn't been a personally satisfying answer to be had, the same cannot be said for the BOM.

JOHN MORMON:
You should believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God for similar reasons that you believe that those referred to in the Bible were prophets. By their fruits you shall know them. The Book of Mormon is a "fruit" of Joseph Smith. If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph was a prophet.
I don't think the BOM can withstand the same level of scrutiny as the Bible has.

JOHN MORMON:
Since God is doing important things these days, He surely needs prophets to let the rest of us know. Whether Joseph Smith was such a person should be the question, not that he couldn't be a prophet because there are no prophets in these latter days.

Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

I think that there are prophets.
I don't however see the NT equivalent of what the LDS church has today.

JOHN MORMON:
Other than the mere fact that their names appear in the Bible, Troutk13, why do you believe those mentioned in the Bible were prophets of God, inspired by God to speak and write God's Word?
I have no reason to believe otherwise, the same cannot be said of Joseph Smith.

JOHN MORMON:
But, Troutk13, you considered the fact that the Bible did that sort of thing for you as evidence of the Bible's truthfulness.
And how I feel about the Bible has no bearing on whether it's true or not. The Bible is true or not true apart from my opinion of it.


If the Book of Mormon does the same sort of thing for you, why won't you treat it similarly?
The BOM doesn't do the same thing for me, but even if it did, that wouldn't lend any objective truthfulness to it.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Sure. JP is an atheist. He does not believe Mormonism anymore. He does, however, sometimes see that certain criticisms by Christians are unfounded.

TROUTK13:
So JP thinks that the claims made by Christians regarding the prophesies of Joseph Smith are unfounded?


POWELL:
Yes. They are being hypocritical. They are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

TROUTK13:
Or would it be fair for the Christian to scrutinize the prophesies of Joseph Smith only as critically as he does the claims of the Bible?


POWELL:
They should scrutinize both with a consistent standard.

TROUTK13:
If we were to use that standard I think we'd find the Bible to be far more reliable than the BOM.


POWELL:
I doubt it. Although the Book of Mormon has a lot of questionable geography, it avoids the more dramatic questionable claims of the Bible like talking animals, worldwide floods and such things.

The Book of Mormon is a talented attempt at making the hard-to-believe Bible more believable. For example, people wonder what it will be like when Jesus returns to the Earth. 3 Ne 11 gives an idea how that might happen. Genesis relates how Noah makes an ark. 1 Ne and Ether explain how God can instruct people to make ships. The O.T. has wars of extermination. The Book of Mormon tries to show how good people are sometimes forced to exterminate their enemies. The O.T. claims the sun stood still, but the Book of Mormon clarifies that it's the Earth that stops spinning. And so on. People wonder how the Bible could have mistakes yet still be reliable. The Book of Mormon prophets admit to being fallible, but that what they write is true.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, some of the Biblical prophets issued "questionable prophecies" too if you think such things are what WILL happen. No ifs, ands, or buts.

TROUTK13:
Again, "questionable" is an ambiguous term, and what might satisfy JM, wouldn't necessarily satisfy JP or Jew Powell. (How many more personalities are in there?) In my study, I've yet to come across a problem with the Bible that there hasn't been a personally satisfying answer to be had, the same cannot be said for the BOM.


JOHN MORMON:
Ok. What is your satisfying explanation for why Jonah prophecied that the people of Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4), but it didn't happen? Was this a CONDITIONAL prophecy or what was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

JOHN MORMON:
You should believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God for similar reasons that you believe that those referred to in the Bible were prophets. By their fruits you shall know them. The Book of Mormon is a "fruit" of Joseph Smith. If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph was a prophet.

TROUTK13:
I don't think the BOM can withstand the same level of scrutiny as the Bible has.


JOHN MORMON:
I assure you that it can in the ways that are important. In fact, there are fewer significant errors in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
Since God is doing important things these days, He surely needs prophets to let the rest of us know. Whether Joseph Smith was such a person should be the question, not that he couldn't be a prophet because there are no prophets in these latter days.

TROUTK13:


Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.


TROUTK13:
I think that there are prophets.
I don't however see the NT equivalent of what the LDS church has today.


JOHN MORMON:
Do those modern prophets of yours sometimes write new scripture like the ancient ones did? Ours sometimes do.

JOHN MORMON:
Other than the mere fact that their names appear in the Bible, Troutk13, why do you believe those mentioned in the Bible were prophets of God, inspired by God to speak and write God's Word?

TROUTK13:
I have no reason to believe otherwise, the same cannot be said of Joseph Smith.


JOHN MORMON:
What are the "reasons otherwise" for Joseph Smith?

JOHN MORMON:
But, Troutk13, you considered the fact that the Bible did that sort of thing for you as evidence of the Bible's truthfulness.

TROUTK13:
And how I feel about the Bible has no bearing on whether it's true or not. The Bible is true or not true apart from my opinion of it.


JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Troutk, but WHY do YOU believe the Bible is true? You claimed you weren't raised a Christian, but apparently after reading parts of the Bible, you concluded it was true because of its "uncanny explanation of [your] condition."

TROUTK13 (post 16, Testing the Book of Mormon by prayer, emphasis by Powell)

Actually Christianity wasn't spoken of in my upbringing, my father had a deep dislike for Christianity, and called himself an atheist for many years. Where the words of the Bible rang objectively true in my life was it's uncanny explanation of my condition.


JOHN MORMON:
I'm suggesting that the Book of Mormon could do the same for you if you try harder to give it a chance.

POWELL:
If that's your methodology to determine what books are true, then physics and biology and medical and psychology books should rate even higher on your list since they are much more accurate representations of your condition than the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
If the Book of Mormon does the same sort of thing for you, why won't you treat it similarly?

TROUTK13:
The BOM doesn't do the same thing for me, but even if it did, that wouldn't lend any objective truthfulness to it.


JOHN MORMON:
Then why does it lend objective truthfulness to the Bible?

Why do you believe the Bible? What are the reasons?

John Powell

[Trout]

POWELL:

POWELL:
Sure. JP is an atheist. He does not believe Mormonism anymore. He does, however, sometimes see that certain criticisms by Christians are unfounded.

TROUTK13:
So JP thinks that the claims made by Christians regarding the prophesies of Joseph Smith are unfounded?

POWELL:
Yes. They are being hypocritical. They are committing the fallacy of special pleading.
Only if they were to use the Bible as the standard.

POWELL:
They should scrutinize both with a consistent standard.
What would there be to scrutinize about the BOM? It's historicity? It's geography? It's origin?

POWELL:
I doubt it. Although the Book of Mormon has a lot of questionable geography, it avoids the more dramatic questionable claims of the Bible like talking animals, worldwide floods and such things.

The Book of Mormon is a talented attempt at making the hard-to-believe Bible more believable. For example, people wonder what it will be like when Jesus returns to the Earth. 3 Ne 11 gives an idea how that might happen. Genesis relates how Noah makes an ark. 1 Ne and Ether explain how God can instruct people to make ships. The O.T. has wars of extermination. The Book of Mormon tries to show how good people are sometimes forced to exterminate their enemies. The O.T. claims the sun stood still, but the Book of Mormon clarifies that it's the Earth that stops spinning. And so on. People wonder how the Bible could have mistakes yet still be reliable. The Book of Mormon prophets admit to being fallible, but that what they write is true.
Considering Joseph Smith's background I must disagree, I think the BOM is part of an elaborate con, began by Joseph Smith.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok. What is your satisfying explanation for why Jonah prophecied that the people of Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4), but it didn't happen? Was this a CONDITIONAL prophecy or what was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?
John Mormon, what reason do I have for thinking that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Troutk, but WHY do YOU believe the Bible is true? You claimed you weren't raised a Christian, but apparently after reading parts of the Bible, you concluded it was true because of its "uncanny explanation of [your] condition."
After my conversion I discovered how the bible explained my origin, the meaning of life, how I should live and what my destiny would be. But my reading of the Bible came after the fact of my re-birth.

POWELL:
If that's your methodology to determine what books are true, then physics and biology and medical and psychology books should rate even higher on your list since they are much more accurate representations of your condition than the Bible.
JP, that's a valid point. But consider this, if we were to find that the Bible weren't inerrent, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the message of Christ wasn't true. After all He said, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life" He claimed to be the inerrent Word of God. He also said,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

So then the sole purpose of the Bible is to testify of Christ. He is the reason for the Bible. His message isn't the Bible, nor did He come to bring the message, He is the message.

If we were to determine that in fact the Bible was inerrent, that wouldn't necessarily make the words in it true. Sometimes lost in the debate is the reason we have the Bible which is Christ, not the book in and of itself.

[Lilith]

Oh Trout13,
Must you constantly pick on us. I would like one of those JHP books.
You know i do find it rather amusing that you people have nothing better to do than
tell people that there religion is wrong and how right you are. Really . . . in the long run, does it really matter to you? you're wasting your lives doing something that
holds little ground for argument. Step out of your little caves and do something worth while! Carpe Diem! Or if you prefer, Carpe Noctum!

[Trout]

Oh Trout13,
Must you constantly pick on us. I would like one of those JHP books.
You know i do find it rather amusing that you people have nothing better to do than
tell people that there religion is wrong and how right you are. Really . . . in the long run, does it really matter to you? you're wasting your lives doing something that
holds little ground for argument. Step out of your little caves and do something worth while! Carpe Diem! Or if you prefer, Carpe Noctum!

I'm sorry you feel picked on.
What kinds of things do you consider to be worthwhile Lilith?

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Sure. JP is an atheist. He does not believe Mormonism anymore. He does, however, sometimes see that certain criticisms by Christians are unfounded.

TROUTK13:
So JP thinks that the claims made by Christians regarding the prophesies of Joseph Smith are unfounded?

POWELL:
Yes. They are being hypocritical. They are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

TROUTK13:
Only if they were to use the Bible as the standard.


POWELL:
Not only then. If they aren't consistent in their methodology then they are committing special pleading.

POWELL:
They should scrutinize both with a consistent standard.

TROUTK13:
What would there be to scrutinize about the BOM? It's historicity? It's geography? It's origin?


JOHN MORMON:
Its doctrine. Its power to change lives. Isn't that what's really important about scriptures like the Bible or do you think external evidences are what really matters about the Bible?

POWELL:
I doubt it. Although the Book of Mormon has a lot of questionable geography, it avoids the more dramatic questionable claims of the Bible like talking animals, worldwide floods and such things.

The Book of Mormon is a talented attempt at making the hard-to-believe Bible more believable. For example, people wonder what it will be like when Jesus returns to the Earth. 3 Ne 11 gives an idea how that might happen. Genesis relates how Noah makes an ark. 1 Ne and Ether explain how God can instruct people to make ships. The O.T. has wars of extermination. The Book of Mormon tries to show how good people are sometimes forced to exterminate their enemies. The O.T. claims the sun stood still, but the Book of Mormon clarifies that it's the Earth that stops spinning. And so on. People wonder how the Bible could have mistakes yet still be reliable. The Book of Mormon prophets admit to being fallible, but that what they write is true.

TROUTK13:
Considering Joseph Smith's background I must disagree, I think the BOM is part of an elaborate con, began by Joseph Smith.


POWELL:
What you said was not necessarily in disagreement with what I said.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok. What is your satisfying explanation for why Jonah prophecied that the people of Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4), but it didn't happen? Was this a CONDITIONAL prophecy or what was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

TROUTK13:
John Mormon, what reason do I have for thinking that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God?


JOHN MORMON:
For the same reason you think Jonah was a prophet: his works are recorded in scripture. Remember, the Old Testament is not the only scripture. Nor is scripture necessarily limited to just the Old Testament and the New Testament. God can reveal more things if He wants.

Now, what is your answer to the Jonah question?

Apparently you aren't able to mount a good criticism of Joseph's "unfulfilled" prophecies without also criticizing Jonah's prophecy.

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Troutk, but WHY do YOU believe the Bible is true? You claimed you weren't raised a Christian, but apparently after reading parts of the Bible, you concluded it was true because of its "uncanny explanation of [your] condition."

TROUTK13:
After my conversion I discovered how the bible explained my origin, the meaning of life, how I should live and what my destiny would be. But my reading of the Bible came after the fact of my re-birth.


JOHN MORMON:
What were the events leading up to your "re-birth" if they did not include Biblical teachings?

POWELL:
If that's your methodology to determine what books are true, then physics and biology and medical and psychology books should rate even higher on your list since they are much more accurate representations of your condition than the Bible.

TROUTK13:
JP, that's a valid point. But consider this, if we were to find that the Bible weren't inerrent, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the message of Christ wasn't true. After all He said, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life" He claimed to be the inerrent Word of God. He also said,

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."


TROUTK13:
So then the sole purpose of the Bible is to testify of Christ. He is the reason for the Bible. His message isn't the Bible, nor did He come to bring the message, He is the message.

If we were to determine that in fact the Bible was inerrent, that wouldn't necessarily make the words in it true. Sometimes lost in the debate is the reason we have the Bible which is Christ, not the book in and of itself.


POWELL:
That's a more liberal view than that of inerrantists. However, we don't have Christ, all we have is scriptures talking about Him.

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
Its doctrine. Its power to change lives. Isn't that what's really important about scriptures like the Bible or do you think external evidences are what really matters about the Bible?


There are many works containing correct doctrines and many works that have displayed the ability to change lives, that doesn't necessarily mean that all works that have such qualities are inspired, the external evidences in favor of the Bible lend credibility to the message contained therein.



JOHN MORMON:
For the same reason you think Jonah was a prophet: his works are recorded in scripture. Remember, the Old Testament is not the only scripture. Nor is scripture necessarily limited to just the Old Testament and the New Testament. God can reveal more things if He wants.


He can do anything He wants to. But He has chosen to speak to us by His Son through the Holy Spirit



Now, what is your answer to the Jonah question?


God's prophesies aren't contingent, God's wrath is. It's contingent upon repentance. Jonah was doing his job by telling the people to repent, had they remained in their unrepentant state, the wrath of God would have been visited upon them.



Apparently you aren't able to mount a good criticism of Joseph's "unfulfilled" prophecies without also criticizing Jonah's prophecy.


So much for that idea.


JOHN MORMON:
What were the events leading up to your "re-birth" if they did not include Biblical teachings?



I would venture a guess and say that there are more Christians in the world who do not own a Bible than there are Christians with a Bible. (I may be wrong.) The man who lead me to the Lord couldn't read, he spoke to me about my condition and how God had demonstrated His mercy to me in the Person of His Son. My re-birth was the initial act, my study of the Bible was the secondary act.



POWELL:
That's a more liberal view than that of inerrantists. However, we don't have Christ, all we have is scriptures talking about Him.

John Powell


And the empty tomb. :wink:

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Its doctrine. Its power to change lives. Isn't that what's really important about scriptures like the Bible or do you think external evidences are what really matters about the Bible?

TROUTK13:
There are many works containing correct doctrines and many works that have displayed the ability to change lives, that doesn't necessarily mean that all works that have such qualities are inspired, the external evidences in favor of the Bible lend credibility to the message contained therein.


JOHN MORMON:
Yes, then they are inspired, but to be scripture it needs to be more than merely "inspired." Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is like the Bible in being scripture.

The external evidences in favor of the Bible do not demonstrate that the DOCTRINE is true. For that, you need God's inspiration. You need to practice the teachings and test whether they are good like a seed that grows in your heart (Alma 32). You need to pray about it and get God's answer (Moroni 10:3-5).

JOHN MORMON:
For the same reason you think Jonah was a prophet: his works are recorded in scripture. Remember, the Old Testament is not the only scripture. Nor is scripture necessarily limited to just the Old Testament and the New Testament. God can reveal more things if He wants.

TROUTK13:
He can do anything He wants to. But He has chosen to speak to us by His Son through the Holy Spirit


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons think that's happening in the Book of Mormon.

JOHN MORMON:
Now, what is your answer to the Jonah question?

TROUTK13:
God's prophesies aren't contingent, God's wrath is.


JOHN MORMON:
Then, when God told David that "He (Saul) will come down" (1 Sam 23:11) and "They (the men of Keilah) will deliver thee up" (1 Sam 23:12) then that was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

TROUTK13:
It's contingent upon repentance.


JOHN MORMON:
Exactly. The fulfillment of the prophecy is contingent on our free will actions.

TROUTK13:
Jonah was doing his job by telling the people to repent, had they remained in their unrepentant state, the wrath of God would have been visited upon them.


JOHN MORMON:
Where did Jonah tell them to repent? He told them they were going to be destroyed. He was disappointed when it didn't happen because they repented and God did not destroy them. Perhaps he was hoping to see another Sodom or Gomorrah.

My point is that, just like even though Jonah did not say "if X then Y will happen," but just "Y will happen," does NOT mean you should ignore the implied conditions, so likewise with Joseph Smith's prophecies.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently you aren't able to mount a good criticism of Joseph's "unfulfilled" prophecies without also criticizing Jonah's prophecy.

TROUTK13:
So much for that idea.


JOHN MORMON:
You're not out of the Jonah problem yet. You need to answer my follow up questions.

JOHN MORMON:
What were the events leading up to your "re-birth" if they did not include Biblical teachings?

TROUTK13:
I would venture a guess and say that there are more Christians in the world who do not own a Bible than there are Christians with a Bible. (I may be wrong.) The man who lead me to the Lord couldn't read, he spoke to me about my condition and how God had demonstrated His mercy to me in the Person of His Son. My re-birth was the initial act, my study of the Bible was the secondary act.


JOHN MORMON:
So the man was using Biblical teachings without, perhaps, quoting anything in particular from the Bible. So, if an illiterate Mormon missionary had been the one to speak to you about your need to follow the teachings of God's restored church then you might have joined the Mormon church rather than the one you did?

Maybe God inspired that man to help you change from skeptic to believer so that you would be closer to hearing the full truth from the Mormons, eh?

POWELL:
That's a more liberal view than that of inerrantists. However, we don't have Christ, all we have is scriptures talking about Him.

John Powell

TROUTK13:
And the empty tomb.


POWELL:
It's controversial with me whether Jesus ever existed to be put in a tomb.

Where does Paul mention the "empty tomb" idea? Modern Christians make a big deal about it, but Paul doesn't seem to see the importance.

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
The external evidences in favor of the Bible do not demonstrate that the DOCTRINE is true.


Right, the external evidences of the Bible lend credibility to it.



For that, you need God's inspiration. You need to practice the teachings and test whether they are good like a seed that grows in your heart (Alma 32). You need to pray about it and get God's answer (Moroni 10:3-5).



But there is no good reason to begin practising the teachings of the BOM.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons think that's happening in the Book of Mormon.

And Muslim's think equally highly of the Koran, does what they think make the Koran true?



JOHN MORMON:
Then, when God told David that "He (Saul) will come down" (1 Sam 23:11) and "They (the men of Keilah) will deliver thee up" (1 Sam 23:12) then that was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?


David asked God a question, to which God answered "yes they will deliver you up". David thought it a good idea to leave, so that he wouldn't get delivered up. So, it wasn't a prophesy, it was an answer to a question.



JOHN MORMON:
Exactly. The fulfillment of the prophecy is contingent on our free will actions.


No, God's wrath is contingent upon our repentance.



JOHN MORMON:
Where did Jonah tell them to repent? He told them they were going to be destroyed. He was disappointed when it didn't happen because they repented and God did not destroy them. Perhaps he was hoping to see another Sodom or Gomorrah.

My point is that, just like even though Jonah did not say "if X then Y will happen," but just "Y will happen," does NOT mean you should ignore the implied conditions, so likewise with Joseph Smith's prophecies.


My wife looks at the speedometer on the dashboard of our car while I'm driving and realizing that my rate of speed is greater than that allowed by law she warns, "You're going to get a ticket". realizing that her call to repentance will slow the progress of our vehicle.


When Jonah said, "Forty days and God is going to destroy your town" he was issuing a call to repentance, in very much the same way my wife does. Jonah's dissapointment and God's correction are reason to believe that God had been working in his life also, not just the Ninevites.



JOHN MORMON:
You're not out of the Jonah problem yet. You need to answer my follow up questions.



How about now?




JOHN MORMON:
So the man was using Biblical teachings without, perhaps, quoting anything in particular from the Bible. So, if an illiterate Mormon missionary had been the one to speak to you about your need to follow the teachings of God's restored church then you might have joined the Mormon church rather than the one you did?

Maybe God inspired that man to help you change from skeptic to believer so that you would be closer to hearing the full truth from the Mormons, eh?



Nah, I don't think so, I'd had the missionary lessons on two occasions prior to my conversion to Christ.



POWELL:
It's controversial with me whether Jesus ever existed to be put in a tomb.

Where does Paul mention the "empty tomb" idea? Modern Christians make a big deal about it, but Paul doesn't seem to see the importance.

John Powell



The "empty tomb" idea, or the resurrection idea? Doesn't the resurrection idea infer the "empty tomb" idea?

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
The external evidences in favor of the Bible do not demonstrate that the DOCTRINE is true.

TROUTK13:
Right, the external evidences of the Bible lend credibility to it.

JOHN MORMON:
For that, you need God's inspiration. You need to practice the teachings and test whether they are good like a seed that grows in your heart (Alma 32). You need to pray about it and get God's answer (Moroni 10:3-5).

TROUTK13:
But there is no good reason to begin practising [sic] the teachings of the BOM.


JOHN MORMON:
Then what good reason is there to begin practicing the teachings of the Bible?

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons think that's happening in the Book of Mormon.

TROUTK13:
And Muslim's think equally highly of the Koran, does what they think make the Koran true?


JOHN MORMON:
No. And, Christians think equally highly of the Bible, does what they think make the Bible true? Also, no.

Do you see the "special pleading" you can't seem to avoid committing?

You apparently put the Book of Mormon and Quran in the set of things that "Troutk13 does not find any reason to believe" and the Bible in the set of things that "Troutk13 doesn't find any reason NOT to believe" without clearly indicating why, other than that the Bible seems to have more external evidences in support. However, where's the evidence in support of the DOCTRINE? Why is the DOCTRINE of the Bible accepted by you, but the DOCTRINE of the Book of Mormon and Quran rejected by you?

Is it because the Bible was the basis for your personal conversion to belief in a God? Was it by chance? If a Mormon or a Muslim had been the first one to get to you, might you have gone a different route?

JOHN MORMON:
Then, when God told David that "He (Saul) will come down" (1 Sam 23:11) and "They (the men of Keilah) will deliver thee up" (1 Sam 23:12) then that was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

TROUTK13:
David asked God a question, to which God answered "yes they will deliver you up". David thought it a good idea to leave, so that he wouldn't get delivered up. So, it wasn't a prophesy [sic], it was an answer to a question.


JOHN MORMON:
What is your definition of "prophecy," Troutk13, if it doesn't include "a prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration." (2nd definition in American Heritage Dictionary at www.dictionary.com)

Given what you say above, perhaps you think that when Jesus answered the question "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matt 24:3) with what followed in the chapter then it "wasn't a prophecy, it was an answer to a question." It's not something certain to happen. Is that your position?

JOHN MORMON:
Exactly. The fulfillment of the prophecy is contingent on our free will actions.

TROUTK13:
No, God's wrath is contingent upon our repentance.


JOHN MORMON:
According to Jonah, was the destruction of Ninevah contingent on the actions of the inhabitants?

If yes, then why didn't Jonah say so? Was it because it's IMPLIED that when a prophet says "X will happen" then it really means "X will happen if nobody changes the way things are going"?

JOHN MORMON:
Where did Jonah tell them to repent? He told them they were going to be destroyed. He was disappointed when it didn't happen because they repented and God did not destroy them. Perhaps he was hoping to see another Sodom or Gomorrah.

My point is that, just like even though Jonah did not say "if X then Y will happen," but just "Y will happen," does NOT mean you should ignore the implied conditions, so likewise with Joseph Smith's prophecies.

TROUTK13:
My wife looks at the speedometer on the dashboard of our car while I'm driving and realizing that my rate of speed is greater than that allowed by law she warns, "You're going to get a ticket". realizing that her call to repentance will slow the progress of our vehicle.


JOHN MORMON:
Good. So, when your wife says "X will happen to you" it's implied that "X will happen to you if nobody changes things," right? Is it the same way with God?

TROUTK13:
When Jonah said, "Forty days and God is going to destroy your town" he was issuing a call to repentance, in very much the same way my wife does. Jonah's dissapointment and God's correction are reason to believe that God had been working in his life also, not just the Ninevites.


JOHN MORMON:
Nineveh was a lot larger, apparently, than a mere town.

Ok, so when God says "X will happen" it's often a call to repentance rather than a certain prediction of the future, is that your position?

When Jesus told Peter that Peter will deny Jesus three times before the cock crows twice (Mark 14:30) was it a CERTAIN prediction of the future (it was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts) or something else, say a warning that *IF* Peter went to the trial then he would be pressured so much to deny that he would very likely do so or something like that?

Could Peter have exercised his free will to cause that Peter did NOT deny Jesus three times that night before the cock crowed the second time or was it unchangeable "fate" or what?

JOHN MORMON:
You're not out of the Jonah problem yet. You need to answer my follow up questions.

TROUTK13:
How about now?


JOHN MORMON:
Thank you for answering my questions.

JOHN MORMON:
So the man was using Biblical teachings without, perhaps, quoting anything in particular from the Bible. So, if an illiterate Mormon missionary had been the one to speak to you about your need to follow the teachings of God's restored church then you might have joined the Mormon church rather than the one you did?

Maybe God inspired that man to help you change from skeptic to believer so that you would be closer to hearing the full truth from the Mormons, eh?

TROUTK13:
Nah, I don't think so, I'd had the missionary lessons on two occasions prior to my conversion to Christ.


JOHN MORMON:
Maybe you weren't READY yet for the Mormon Missionary discussions. Unfortunately, now that you have a "little" truth you think you have it all and refuse to go beyond what mere Christianity can teach you. You have the Bible so you don't want any more scriptures.

When you're ready to listen to the truth, let the Mormons know.

POWELL:
It's controversial with me whether Jesus ever existed to be put in a tomb.

Where does Paul mention the "empty tomb" idea? Modern Christians make a big deal about it, but Paul doesn't seem to see the importance.

John Powell

TROUTK13:
The "empty tomb" idea, or the resurrection idea? Doesn't the resurrection idea infer the "empty tomb" idea?


POWELL:
Not if Jesus did not live on the Earth. Some mythicists claim that Paul believed Jesus was crucified and resurrected in an intermediate realm between Earth and heaven, rather than that Jesus lived on Earth and was buried in a tomb. The fact that Paul does NOT use this "powerful" Christian argument for the resurrection is pointed to as one of the evidences of this. Perhaps you can find somewhere that Paul says or clearly implies an "empty tomb"?

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
Then what good reason is there to begin practicing the teachings of the Bible?

There are reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality. Historicity, archeology, linguistics. . .etc.


JOHN MORMON:
No. And, Christians think equally highly of the Bible, does what they think make the Bible true? Also, no.

Do you see the "special pleading" you can't seem to avoid committing?


If I were to pray about the BOM, I would be committing special pleading, because there isn't one reason to think that the BOM corresponds with reality, whereas there are many evidences that the Bible corresponds with reality.


You apparently put the Book of Mormon and Quran in the set of things that "Troutk13 does not find any reason to believe" and the Bible in the set of things that "Troutk13 doesn't find any reason NOT to believe" without clearly indicating why, other than that the Bible seems to have more external evidences in support. However, where's the evidence in support of the DOCTRINE? Why is the DOCTRINE of the Bible accepted by you, but the DOCTRINE of the Book of Mormon and Quran rejected by you?


There is actually more reason to believe that the Koran is what it says it is, than there is to think that the BOM is the Word of God.


Is it because the Bible was the basis for your personal conversion to belief in a God? Was it by chance? If a Mormon or a Muslim had been the first one to get to you, might you have gone a different route?


The reason for my belief is because of the Word of God, and yes it was a supernatural experience, but one that can be verified by the Bible. And many things contained in the Bible can also be verified.Jesus said, " "You search the Scriptures, for in them(The scriptures) you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." The re-birth is in Christ not in the scriptures.(In my case) In many cases, there exist people who are very sincere and diligent in their LDS faith but after much study and prayer they find that the BOM isn't in fact what it claims to be.



JOHN MORMON:
What is your definition of "prophecy," Troutk13, if it doesn't include "a prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration." (2nd definition in American Heritage Dictionary at www.dictionary.com)

Given what you say above, perhaps you think that when Jesus answered the question "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matt 24:3) with what followed in the chapter then it "wasn't a prophecy, it was an answer to a question." It's not something certain to happen. Is that your position?


Notice that those He spoke with were already certain that the things they asked Jesus about would happen, their question was "when", not "if". So the answer is yes, I would say that those things will come to pass.



JOHN MORMON:
According to Jonah, was the destruction of Ninevah contingent on the actions of the inhabitants?

If yes, then why didn't Jonah say so? Was it because it's IMPLIED that when a prophet says "X will happen" then it really means "X will happen if nobody changes the way things are going"?


Jonah issued a call to repentance, the people responded, God's wrath was averted.



JOHN MORMON:
Good. So, when your wife says "X will happen to you" it's implied that "X will happen to you if nobody changes things," right? Is it the same way with God?


My wife issued a call to repentance, the speed of our vehicle slowed, a ticket was averted.



JOHN MORMON:
Nineveh was a lot larger, apparently, than a mere town.


Ok?


Ok, so when God says "X will happen" it's often a call to repentance rather than a certain prediction of the future, is that your position?


A prophesy is a prophesy and a call to repentance is a call to repentance.


When Jesus told Peter that Peter will deny Jesus three times before the cock crows twice (Mark 14:30) was it a CERTAIN prediction of the future (it was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts) or something else, say a warning that *IF* Peter went to the trial then he would be pressured so much to deny that he would very likely do so or something like that?

Could Peter have exercised his free will to cause that Peter did NOT deny Jesus three times that night before the cock crowed the second time or was it unchangeable "fate" or what?


Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." I would say that He was making a predictive prophesy. As far as Peter's free will goes, that would be another discussion.




JOHN MORMON:
Thank you for answering my questions.


My pleasure.






JOHN MORMON:
Maybe you weren't READY yet for the Mormon Missionary discussions. Unfortunately, now that you have a "little" truth you think you have it all and refuse to go beyond what mere Christianity can teach you. You have the Bible so you don't want any more scriptures.

When you're ready to listen to the truth, let the Mormons know.


Sounds good. But why would my readiness make the BOM true?




POWELL:
Not if Jesus did not live on the Earth. Some mythicists claim that Paul believed Jesus was crucified and resurrected in an intermediate realm between Earth and heaven, rather than that Jesus lived on Earth and was buried in a tomb. The fact that Paul does NOT use this "powerful" Christian argument for the resurrection is pointed to as one of the evidences of this. Perhaps you can find somewhere that Paul says or clearly implies an "empty tomb"?

John Powell



If Jesus didn't live on the earth, then Christianity is completely false. And the fact that Paul spoke of Christ's resurrection while not using the empty tomb analogy means simply that he didn't use the empty tomb analogy.

You could put this issue to rest for good, simply by producing the body.

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Then what good reason is there to begin practicing the teachings of the Bible?

TROUTK13:
There are reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality. Historicity, archeology, linguistics. . .etc.


JOHN MORMON:
Those are reasons to think the Bible's history, archaeology, linguistics, etc. correspond with reality. The Bible avoids being among those books with false history, archaeology, or linguistics, such as the "Ring Trilogy" by J.R.R. Tolkien.

However, what evidence is there that the DOCTRINE in the Bible is true? For example, what is the evidence that the Golden Rule is a divine principle? Does the fact that Jerusalem really existed in those days and the Greek language really was spoken in those days give good evidence that the Golden Rule is divine? I don't think so.

How do you decide if religious principle RP described in a religious book is "true" or not? Mormons have a way to determine religious truth regardless of the source. Christians merely claim the Bible is the truth and anything in line with the Bible is true. However, they have no way, apparently, to determine if the doctrine in the Bible is true. They merely take it for granted. Christians fail to avoid the circularity of their reasoning.

JOHN MORMON:
No. And, Christians think equally highly of the Bible, does what they think make the Bible true? Also, no.

Do you see the "special pleading" you can't seem to avoid committing?

TROUTK13:
If I were to pray about the BOM, I would be committing special pleading, because there isn't one reason to think that the BOM corresponds with reality, whereas there are many evidences that the Bible corresponds with reality.


JOHN MORMON:
You don't seem to understand what "special pleading" is. "Special pleading" is NOT to make a special request of God, but it's a logical fallacy (mistake in reasoning) in which you claim rule R applies in situations S, but you don't apply it consistently. You demand your opponents apply rule R to themselves, but you claim or imply you are exempt from the rule without it appearing to be the case that your situation is sufficiently special.

Here's an example.

If a person claims their scripture is true that doesn't make it true. However, I claim the Bible is true, therefore it makes the Bible true. That would be special pleading, but one you're NOT committing.

The special pleading that you're committing is to put the Bible in a "true because I have not reasons to think otherwise" category distinctly separate from the Book of Mormon and the Quran without giving good reasons why the Bible is sufficiently different from them.

JOHN MORMON:
You apparently put the Book of Mormon and Quran in the set of things that "Troutk13 does not find any reason to believe" and the Bible in the set of things that "Troutk13 doesn't find any reason NOT to believe" without clearly indicating why, other than that the Bible seems to have more external evidences in support. However, where's the evidence in support of the DOCTRINE? Why is the DOCTRINE of the Bible accepted by you, but the DOCTRINE of the Book of Mormon and Quran rejected by you?

TROUTK13:
There is actually more reason to believe that the Koran is what it says it is, than there is to think that the BOM is the Word of God.


JOHN MORMON:
Whatever.

JOHN MORMON:
Is it because the Bible was the basis for your personal conversion to belief in a God? Was it by chance? If a Mormon or a Muslim had been the first one to get to you, might you have gone a different route?

TROUTK13:
The reason for my belief is because of the Word of God, and yes it was a supernatural experience, but one that can be verified by the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
BINGO! So, you had a special experience with the Bible, huh? That's what Mormons consider a possible confirmation from God that the Bible is true. We claim you can also have special experiences with the Book of Mormon. We deny, however, that experiences with the Quran will come close to matching those of the Bible or the Book of Mormon. There's surely some truth in the Quran, so you might have some good experiences with it, but taken over all, I'm confident you'd find too much in error.

TROUTK13:
And many things contained in the Bible can also be verified.


JOHN MORMON:
The important question here is how to verify that the DOCTRINE is true.

TROUTK13:
Jesus said, " "You search the Scriptures, for in them(The scriptures) you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." The re-birth is in Christ not in the scriptures.(In my case) In many cases, there exist people who are very sincere and diligent in their LDS faith but after much study and prayer they find that the BOM isn't in fact what it claims to be.


JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps a few, but most diligent Mormons get the answer they seek from God and remain good Mormons until the end of their mortal lives. Don't let a few apostates dissuade you from the truth. Remember that there were apostates since the very beginning. Even God could not keep Satan and his angels.

JOHN MORMON:
What is your definition of "prophecy," Troutk13, if it doesn't include "a prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration." (2nd definition in American Heritage Dictionary at www.dictionary.com)

Given what you say above, perhaps you think that when Jesus answered the question "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matt 24:3) with what followed in the chapter then it "wasn't a prophecy, it was an answer to a question." It's not something certain to happen. Is that your position?

TROUTK13:
Notice that those He spoke with were already certain that the things they asked Jesus about would happen, their question was "when", not "if". So the answer is yes, I would say that those things will come to pass.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Troutk13, what if GOD exercised His free will and decided to destroy the Earth before those events could occur? He could do that you know (unless you don't think God has free will.) It's quite clear to me that prophecies are contingent. They are contingent on what free agents like God, Satan, angels, and mortals choose to do.

JOHN MORMON:
According to Jonah, was the destruction of Ninevah contingent on the actions of the inhabitants?

If yes, then why didn't Jonah say so? Was it because it's IMPLIED that when a prophet says "X will happen" then it really means "X will happen if nobody changes the way things are going"?

TROUTK13:
Jonah issued a call to repentance, the people responded, God's wrath was averted.


JOHN MORMON:
The destruction prophecied by Jonah that "will happen" was averted. The prophecy AS SPOKEN went unfulfilled. The prophecy AS IMPLIED, however, was fulfilled. The prophecy was something like "If you keep doing what you're doing then God plans to destroy you in 40 days."

JOHN MORMON:
Good. So, when your wife says "X will happen to you" it's implied that "X will happen to you if nobody changes things," right? Is it the same way with God?

TROUTK13:
My wife issued a call to repentance, the speed of our vehicle slowed, a ticket was averted.


JOHN MORMON:
Good.

JOHN MORMON:
Nineveh was a lot larger, apparently, than a mere town.

TROUTK13:
Ok?


JOHN MORMON:
It's just a nitpick.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, so when God says "X will happen" it's often a call to repentance rather than a certain prediction of the future, is that your position?
TROUTK13:

A prophesy [sic] is a prophesy [sic] and a call to repentance is a call to repentance.


JOHN MORMON:
To prophesy is to prophesy. A prophecy is a prophecy.

Is it your position that often when God or His prophet says "X will happen" it's a call to repentance rather than a certain-to-happen prediction of the future?

JOHN MORMON:
When Jesus told Peter that Peter will deny Jesus three times before the cock crows twice (Mark 14:30) was it a CERTAIN prediction of the future (it was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts) or something else, say a warning that *IF* Peter went to the trial then he would be pressured so much to deny that he would very likely do so or something like that?

Could Peter have exercised his free will to cause that Peter did NOT deny Jesus three times that night before the cock crowed the second time or was it unchangeable "fate" or what?

TROUTK13:
Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." I would say that He was making a predictive prophesy. As far as Peter's free will goes, that would be another discussion.


JOHN MORMON:
Was it before the rooster crows once or before the rooster crows twice?

If it was a prediction, certain to be fulfilled, then Peter had no free will to alter it. If you read Mark it looks like Peter had free will. He denied once. He goes outside and hears the cock crow (the first time). If he really wanted to avoid denying Jesus two more times then that was a great time for him to resist going back inside. He chose to return, however, and was tempted two more times to deny. He succumbed to the temptations.

However, Jesus was no more claiming that Peter would deny Him three times, no ifs, ands, or buts, than God was claiming that Saul "will come down" and the men of Keilah "will deliver thee up," no ifs, ands, or buts. These were both contingent predictions. Their fulfillment depended on the free will actions of everyone involved.

JOHN MORMON:
Thank you for answering my questions.

TROUTK13:
My pleasure.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe you weren't READY yet for the Mormon Missionary discussions. Unfortunately, now that you have a "little" truth you think you have it all and refuse to go beyond what mere Christianity can teach you. You have the Bible so you don't want any more scriptures.

When you're ready to listen to the truth, let the Mormons know.

TROUTK13:
Sounds good. But why would my readiness make the BOM true?


JOHN MORMON:
It wouldn't. It just makes you ready to receive the truth.

POWELL:
Not if Jesus did not live on the Earth. Some mythicists claim that Paul believed Jesus was crucified and resurrected in an intermediate realm between Earth and heaven, rather than that Jesus lived on Earth and was buried in a tomb. The fact that Paul does NOT use this "powerful" Christian argument for the resurrection is pointed to as one of the evidences of this. Perhaps you can find somewhere that Paul says or clearly implies an "empty tomb"?

John Powell

TROUTK13:
If Jesus didn't live on the earth, then Christianity is completely false.


POWELL:
It depends on what brand of Christianity. Perhaps Paul's brand of Christianity didn't need a historical Jesus and an empty tomb.

TROUTK13:
And the fact that Paul spoke of Christ's resurrection while not using the empty tomb analogy means simply that he didn't use the empty tomb analogy.

You could put this issue to rest for good, simply by producing the body.


POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
Those are reasons to think the Bible's history, archaeology, linguistics, etc. correspond with reality. The Bible avoids being among those books with false history, archaeology, or linguistics, such as the "Ring Trilogy" by J.R.R. Tolkien.

So how am I to know that the BOM doesn't have a false history? In fact there are many reasons to believe that in fact the BOM does have a false history, or is indeed a fictional history. I wouldn't ask God whether or not the LoTR trilogy was true, simply because there are no reasons to believe that the LoTR corresponds with reality.



However, what evidence is there that the DOCTRINE in the Bible is true? For example, what is the evidence that the Golden Rule is a divine principle? Does the fact that Jerusalem really existed in those days and the Greek language really was spoken in those days give good evidence that the Golden Rule is divine? I don't think so.


I would agree, but the fact of Jerusalem, and the fact of the Greek language lend credibility to the Bible.There are many reasons to believe that the Bible corresponds with reality, thus giving someone compelling reasons to think that the doctrine contained therein could also be correct.




How do you decide if religious principle RP described in a religious book is "true" or not? Mormons have a way to determine religious truth regardless of the source. Christians merely claim the Bible is the truth and anything in line with the Bible is true. However, they have no way, apparently, to determine if the doctrine in the Bible is true. They merely take it for granted. Christians fail to avoid the circularity of their reasoning.


Deciding whether or not a religious principle is correct isn't the goal of Christianity. Christ is the Author of the Christian faith, determining whether or not He is "the Way, the Truth and the Life" is the goal had by the seekers of the truth of Christianity. There are many very good religious ethics around that , if followed, would make the adherant a more peaceful, productive member of society. But if Christ is who He claimed to be, the Bible becomes the supreme ethic, and the doctrines contained within it true.



JOHN MORMON:
You don't seem to understand what "special pleading" is. "Special pleading" is NOT to make a special request of God, but it's a logical fallacy (mistake in reasoning) in which you claim rule R applies in situations S, but you don't apply it consistently. You demand your opponents apply rule R to themselves, but you claim or imply you are exempt from the rule without it appearing to be the case that your situation is sufficiently special.

I understand the "special pleading" fallacy, and I do wish to be consistent in my thinking. There are reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality, that fact lends credibility to the message it contains. There are no reasons to think that the BOM corresponds with reality. So to therefore seek God in prayer about the truthfulness of the BOM completely apart from any reasons to think it was true, would be holding it to a lesser standard than I do the Bible.



Here's an example.

If a person claims their scripture is true that doesn't make it true. However, I claim the Bible is true, therefore it makes the Bible true. That would be special pleading, but one you're NOT committing.

The special pleading that you're committing is to put the Bible in a "true because I have not reasons to think otherwise" category distinctly separate from the Book of Mormon and the Quran without giving good reasons why the Bible is sufficiently different from them.


Many claims made in the Bible can be verified objectively, I have not found this to be the case with the BOM. The same goes for Joseph Smith, I find that many of the claims made by Mr. Smith are demonstrably false.



JOHN MORMON:
BINGO! So, you had a special experience with the Bible, huh? That's what Mormons consider a possible confirmation from God that the Bible is true. We claim you can also have special experiences with the Book of Mormon. We deny, however, that experiences with the Quran will come close to matching those of the Bible or the Book of Mormon. There's surely some truth in the Quran, so you might have some good experiences with it, but taken over all, I'm confident you'd find too much in error.


Not exactly, I would classify the spiritual experience I had as being had with Christ himself, in much the same way that God spoke with Peter. Peter was asked who he thought Jesus was, Peter replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." after which Jesus explained the process that had taken place whereby Peter came to his knowledge, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." In the very same manner God the Father spoke to my heart, telling me that Jesus was in fact who He claimed to be.



JOHN MORMON:
The important question here is how to verify that the DOCTRINE is true.

And the first step in that process, as far as the Bible is concerned, would be to determine whether or not Christ is who He claimed to be.



JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps a few, but most diligent Mormons get the answer they seek from God and remain good Mormons until the end of their mortal lives. Don't let a few apostates dissuade you from the truth. Remember that there were apostates since the very beginning. Even God could not keep Satan and his angels.


How have you concluded that the apostates have received the incorrect answer?



JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Troutk13, what if GOD exercised His free will and decided to destroy the Earth before those events could occur? He could do that you know (unless you don't think God has free will.) It's quite clear to me that prophecies are contingent. They are contingent on what free agents like God, Satan, angels, and mortals choose to do.


He cannot lie, that would be in direct contradiction to His character.



JOHN MORMON:
The destruction prophecied by Jonah that "will happen" was averted. The prophecy AS SPOKEN went unfulfilled. The prophecy AS IMPLIED, however, was fulfilled. The prophecy was something like "If you keep doing what you're doing then God plans to destroy you in 40 days."


Again, it was a call to repentance.



JOHN MORMON:
Is it your position that often when God or His prophet says "X will happen" it's a call to repentance rather than a certain-to-happen prediction of the future?


I believe a proper exigesis of each instance is in order.



JOHN MORMON:
Was it before the rooster crows once or before the rooster crows twice?

If it was a prediction, certain to be fulfilled, then Peter had no free will to alter it. If you read Mark it looks like Peter had free will. He denied once. He goes outside and hears the cock crow (the first time). If he really wanted to avoid denying Jesus two more times then that was a great time for him to resist going back inside. He chose to return, however, and was tempted two more times to deny. He succumbed to the temptations.

However, Jesus was no more claiming that Peter would deny Him three times, no ifs, ands, or buts, than God was claiming that Saul "will come down" and the men of Keilah "will deliver thee up," no ifs, ands, or buts. These were both contingent predictions. Their fulfillment depended on the free will actions of everyone involved.


Thats the way you must read it in order to make your point, as I read the text I see Jesus making a predictive prophesy, and David asking a question.



POWELL:
It depends on what brand of Christianity. Perhaps Paul's brand of Christianity didn't need a historical Jesus and an empty tomb.




POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

John Powell
I think it would have been quite easy in the first century to produce Jesus' body, and put an end to Christianity. Unless His body wasn't to be found.

[Tophet]

JOHN MORMON:
The important question here is how to verify that the DOCTRINE is true.

2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,


POWELL:
It depends on what brand of Christianity.

2 Peter 1
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 1
10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.


1 Corinthians 3
4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?
5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.


Galatians 1
1Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead-- 2and all the brothers with me,
To the churches in Galatia:
3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Acts 16
18She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so troubled that he turned around and said to the spirit, "In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!" At that moment the spirit left her.


1 Thessalonians 1
4For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake.


Perhaps Paul's brand of Christianity didn't need a historical Jesus and an empty tomb.

1 Corinthians 15
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.



POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Those are reasons to think the Bible's history, archaeology, linguistics, etc. correspond with reality. The Bible avoids being among those books with false history, archaeology, or linguistics, such as the "Ring Trilogy" by J.R.R. Tolkien.

TROUTK13:
So how am I to know that the BOM doesn't have a false history?


JOHN MORMON:
Ask God if the Book is true.

TROUTK13:
In fact there are many reasons to believe that in fact the BOM does have a false history, or is indeed a fictional history.


JOHN MORMON:
Similar things could be said about the Bible.

TROUTK13:
I wouldn't ask God whether or not the LoTR trilogy was true, simply because there are no reasons to believe that the LoTR corresponds with reality.


JOHN MORMON:
If you asked God, I think the answer you'd get, if any, would be "no."

JOHN MORMON:
However, what evidence is there that the DOCTRINE in the Bible is true? For example, what is the evidence that the Golden Rule is a divine principle? Does the fact that Jerusalem really existed in those days and the Greek language really was spoken in those days give good evidence that the Golden Rule is divine? I don't think so.

TROUTK13:
I would agree, but the fact of Jerusalem, and the fact of the Greek language lend credibility to the Bible.There are many reasons to believe that the Bible corresponds with reality, thus giving someone compelling reasons to think that the doctrine contained therein could also be correct.


JOHN MORMON:
Just because there really was a Jerusalem and really was a Greek language spoken in that area 2000 years does NOT provide COMPELLING reasons to believe the doctrine.

JOHN MORMON:
How do you decide if religious principle RP described in a religious book is "true" or not? Mormons have a way to determine religious truth regardless of the source. Christians merely claim the Bible is the truth and anything in line with the Bible is true. However, they have no way, apparently, to determine if the doctrine in the Bible is true. They merely take it for granted. Christians fail to avoid the circularity of their reasoning.

TROUTK13:
Deciding whether or not a religious principle is correct isn't the goal of Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
Then how do they know whether they should follow that particular principle or not? Here is just one example:

Jesus told the rich man to give everything to the poor (Matt 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22). Should modern Christians do that? Where does the Bible clarify that rich men don't need to follow that principle?

TROUTK13:
Christ is the Author of the Christian faith, determining whether or not He is "the Way, the Truth and the Life" is the goal had by the seekers of the truth of Christianity. There are many very good religious ethics around that , if followed, would make the adherant a more peaceful, productive member of society. But if Christ is who He claimed to be, the Bible becomes the supreme ethic, and the doctrines contained within it true.


JOHN MORMON:
Not necessarily. It's logically possible that Jesus was who He claimed to be, but the Bible is a false record of that. I don't believe that, but my point is that it's not the BIBLE that makes Jesus the Son of God. Even if the N.T. didn't exist, Jesus would still be the Son of God. Those living in the Americas did NOT have the N.T. yet they believed Jesus was the Son of God.

JOHN MORMON:
You don't seem to understand what "special pleading" is. "Special pleading" is NOT to make a special request of God, but it's a logical fallacy (mistake in reasoning) in which you claim rule R applies in situations S, but you don't apply it consistently. You demand your opponents apply rule R to themselves, but you claim or imply you are exempt from the rule without it appearing to be the case that your situation is sufficiently special.

TROUTK13:
I understand the "special pleading" fallacy, and I do wish to be consistent in my thinking. There are reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality, that fact lends credibility to the message it contains.


JOHN MORMON:
A little bit, but not that much. What really matters is not whether Jerusalem or Zarehemla or the Greek or American Egyptian languages really existed, but whether the life-style works and whether God gives that spiritual confirmation.

TROUTK13:
There are no reasons to think that the BOM corresponds with reality.


JOHN MORMON:
Why don't you test the doctrine in your life and ask God for confirmation?

TROUTK13:
So to therefore seek God in prayer about the truthfulness of the BOM completely apart from any reasons to think it was true, would be holding it to a lesser standard than I do the Bible.


JOHN MORMON:
You seem to think that merely because the external evidences for the Bible (geography, language, etc.) are better than for the Book of Mormon TODAY that, therefore, you have good reason to believe the DOCTRINE of the Bible and reject the DOCTRINE of the Book of Mormon.

That's pretty weak to me, especially since God is willing to confirm that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true.

JOHN MORMON:
Here's an example.

If a person claims their scripture is true that doesn't make it true. However, I claim the Bible is true, therefore it makes the Bible true. That would be special pleading, but one you're NOT committing.

The special pleading that you're committing is to put the Bible in a "true because I have not reasons to think otherwise" category distinctly separate from the Book of Mormon and the Quran without giving good reasons why the Bible is sufficiently different from them.

TROUTK13:
Many claims made in the Bible can be verified objectively, I have not found this to be the case with the BOM.


JOHN MORMON:
There are many claims of the Book of Mormon which you have already verified, such as the existence of dark-skinned people, the existence of great buildings, the existence of wars, the existence of religious beliefs in a white God, the existence of beliefs similar to Christianity, etc. In time more external evidences will appear. Book of Mormon archaeology is in its infancy compared with Biblical archeology.

JOHN MORMON:
The same goes for Joseph Smith, I find that many of the claims made by Mr. Smith are demonstrably false.


JOHN MORMON:
Like what?

A skeptic could say the same about Jonah. Jonah claimed that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, but it didn't happen.

JOHN MORMON:
BINGO! So, you had a special experience with the Bible, huh? That's what Mormons consider a possible confirmation from God that the Bible is true. We claim you can also have special experiences with the Book of Mormon. We deny, however, that experiences with the Quran will come close to matching those of the Bible or the Book of Mormon. There's surely some truth in the Quran, so you might have some good experiences with it, but taken over all, I'm confident you'd find too much in error.

TROUTK13:
Not exactly, I would classify the spiritual experience I had as being had with Christ himself, in much the same way that God spoke with Peter. Peter was asked who he thought Jesus was, Peter replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." after which Jesus explained the process that had taken place whereby Peter came to his knowledge, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." In the very same manner God the Father spoke to my heart, telling me that Jesus was in fact who He claimed to be.


JOHN MORMON:
Good. Did God say or clearly imply to you that the Bible was true and the Book of Mormon was false?

Mormons don't claim Jesus was NOT the Christ or that the Bible is FALSE, but that they have MORE.

JOHN MORMON:
The important question here is how to verify that the DOCTRINE is true.

TROUTK13:
And the first step in that process, as far as the Bible is concerned, would be to determine whether or not Christ is who He claimed to be.


JOHN MORMON:
How do you intend for a Christian to do that without merely assuming that whatever the Bible says is true? Wouldn't it be nice if God were to reveal to them personally the truth of such things? That's what happened to you concerning the truth of Jesus and what Mormons claim can happen to sincere seekers concerning the truth of the Book of Mormon.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps a few, but most diligent Mormons get the answer they seek from God and remain good Mormons until the end of their mortal lives. Don't let a few apostates dissuade you from the truth. Remember that there were apostates since the very beginning. Even God could not keep Satan and his angels.

TROUTK13:
How have you concluded that the apostates have received the incorrect answer?


JOHN MORMON:
It contradicts the answer I've received. I recognize that I might be deceived, but it's the best I have to go on. We must live by faith. God will judge me by my heart even if I was mistaken about some things.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Troutk13, what if GOD exercised His free will and decided to destroy the Earth before those events could occur? He could do that you know (unless you don't think God has free will.) It's quite clear to me that prophecies are contingent. They are contingent on what free agents like God, Satan, angels, and mortals choose to do.

TROUTK13:
He cannot lie, that would be in direct contradiction to His character.


JOHN MORMON:
He can if He has free will. He FREELY CHOOSES not to lie, but He has the power to do so. If what you say is true then perhaps you think that when Satan "tempted" Jesus it wasn't a temptation at all since it was against the nature of Jesus to sin, is that it? In that case it would seem to be no big deal that Jesus lived a sinless life since that was the natural thing for Him to do. Was Jesus capable of sinning? Could Jesus lie? I believe yes, but He FREELY CHOSE not to.

JOHN MORMON:
The destruction prophecied [prophesied] by Jonah that "will happen" was averted. The prophecy AS SPOKEN went unfulfilled. The prophecy AS IMPLIED, however, was fulfilled. The prophecy was something like "If you keep doing what you're doing then God plans to destroy you in 40 days."

TROUTK13:
Again, it was a call to repentance.


JOHN MORMON:
Then why can't Joseph's "unfulfilled" prophecies be considered similarly to Jonah's?

JOHN MORMON:
Is it your position that often when God or His prophet says "X will happen" it's a call to repentance rather than a certain-to-happen prediction of the future?

TROUTK13:
I believe a proper exigesis of each instance is in order.


JOHN MORMON
Can you give enough details of your methodology so someone else could use it to consider statements by Biblical or Mormon prophets or do we have to ask you for your arbitrary decision as to when it's a prediction of the future and when it's merely a call to change what you're doing?

How did your methodology conclude that God's words to David were NOT a prediction of the future and that Jonah's words to Nineveh were NOT a prediction of the future, but the words of Jesus to Peter WERE a prediction of the future and Joseph's words WERE a prediction of the future?

JOHN MORMON:
Was it before the rooster crows once or before the rooster crows twice?

If it was a prediction, certain to be fulfilled, then Peter had no free will to alter it. If you read Mark it looks like Peter had free will. He denied once. He goes outside and hears the cock crow (the first time). If he really wanted to avoid denying Jesus two more times then that was a great time for him to resist going back inside. He chose to return, however, and was tempted two more times to deny. He succumbed to the temptations.

However, Jesus was no more claiming that Peter would deny Him three times, no ifs, ands, or buts, than God was claiming that Saul "will come down" and the men of Keilah "will deliver thee up," no ifs, ands, or buts. These were both contingent predictions. Their fulfillment depended on the free will actions of everyone involved.

TROUTK13:
Thats the way you must read it in order to make your point, as I read the text I see Jesus making a predictive prophesy, and David asking a question.


JOHN MORMON:
Given that David's question was basically "what will happen in the future?" why don't you think God's answers were a prediction of "what will happen in the future"?

Do you agree that if Peter had chosen to keep going away after he denied the first time and heard the first cock crow then he would have avoided denying Jesus the other two times before the second crowing of the cock?

POWELL:
It depends on what brand of Christianity. Perhaps Paul's brand of Christianity didn't need a historical Jesus and an empty tomb.

. . .

POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

John Powell

TROUTK13:
I think it would have been quite easy in the first century to produce Jesus' body, and put an end to Christianity. Unless His body wasn't to be found.


POWELL:
Some mythicists don't think people were preaching that Jesus was a historical person who had recently lived and died until the second century. Prior to that time they were teaching a Jesus in some realm between heaven and earth.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Since Tophet seems to think that merely quoting scriptures proves he's right then I will let John Mormon quote Mormon scriptures "proving" that Mormons are right.

JOHN MORMON:
The important question here is how to verify that the DOCTRINE is true.

TOPHET:

2 Timothy 3:16
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,


2 Peter 1:20-21
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.

21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.



JOHN MORMON:
Good, Tophet. Mormons agree with that, but they think the Book of Mormon counts as scripture and that there are other prophets besides those mentioned in the Bible. You realize, don't you that by those words Paul and Peter were specifically thinking of the OLD TESTAMENT, right?

D&C 68:4
4 And whatsoever they [God's representatives] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.


POWELL:
It depends on what brand of Christianity.

TOPHET:

1 Corinthians 1:10-17
10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.

12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ."

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,

15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.

16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.


1 Corinthians 3:4-5
4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?

5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.


Galatians 1:1-12
1 Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--

2 and all the brothers with me, To the churches in Galatia:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,

4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--

7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.

12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.



JOHN MORMON:

3 Ne 11:29-30
29 For verily, verily I [Jesus] say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.


3 Ne. 15: 21
21 And verily I say unto you, that ye [in the Americas] are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.


TOPHET:

Acts 16:18
18 She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so troubled that he turned around and said to the spirit, "In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!" At that moment the spirit left her.



JOHN MORMON:

D&C 46:7
7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.


3 Ne 7:19
19 And in the name of Jesus did he [Nephi] cast out devils and unclean spirits; and even his brother did he raise from the dead, after he had been stoned and suffered death by the people.


TOPHET:

1 Thessalonians 1:4-5
4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,

5 because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake.



JOHN MORMON:

Hel. 6: 5
5 Yea, and many did preach with exceedingly great power and authority, unto the bringing down many of them into the depths of humility, to be the humble followers of God and the Lamb.


POWELL:
Perhaps Paul's brand of Christianity didn't need a historical Jesus and an empty tomb.

TOPHET:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,



POWELL:
Just because His body was buried does not mean His body came back to life leaving the tomb empty. Perhaps Jesus was resurrected in spirit form.

TOPHET:

1 Cor 15:5
5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.



POWELL:
Who did Jesus appear to first, wasn't it to Mary before Peter?

TOPHET:

1 Cor 15:6-8
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.



POWELL:
Apparently, the "appearance" of Jesus to Paul was no different than the appearances to the others. These "appearances" were some sort of vision or "seeing Jesus" revealed in the Old Testament or something like that.

TOPHET:

1 Cor 15:9-19
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

11 Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.


POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

TOPHET:

2 Peter 1:16:
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.



JOHN MORMON:

D&C 76:22-23
22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father ---


John Powell

[Trout]

trout
* Saints to gather to Independence, Mo. and build Temple (D&C 84)
No longer teach the gathering and temple never built.

JM
If they are worthy. Mormons do still teach the gathering to tht[sic] area, just not right now. For later maybe.

Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

I don't see the words "if they are worthy".



trout
* Zion (Independence, Mo.) can not fall (D&C 97:19)
Mormons driven out.

JOHN MORMON:
Misquote. God isn't claiming Zion can't fail, but certain nations will claim it.


And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say: Surely Zion is the city of our God, and surely Zion cannot fall, neither be moved out of her place, for God is there, and the hand of the Lord is there;

Where does it say, "certain nations will claim it"?



trout
* Army to redeem Zion (Independence, MO) (D&C 103)
Mission unsuccessful. V.30-34 God seems to be unsure about how large an army to raise.


JOHN MORMON:
Read v. 5. It's a contingent promise.

trout
Read the rest of the section, it's not contingent.




trout
* Civil War Prophecy (D&C 87)
England and other nations did not join in


JOHN MORMON:
To some extent they did. Some things are contingent upon what other people do.

Right, but they didn't join in to the extent of Joseph's prophesy.



trout
* United Order (D&C 104)
V.1 Commanded as everlasting order; V.48 & 53 dissolved and reorganized.

JOHN MORMON:
Ignorance of Mormon terminology. Words like "everlasting" and "eternal" are synonyms for "God" (D&C 19:10-12). They don't necessarily mean the thing will happen for ever, but that they have a divine origin. People have free will. God must accommodate.


For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore?Eternal punishment is God?s punishment.Endless punishment is God?s punishment.


Eternal punishment is God's punishment=God's name? And it doesn't mention the word "everlasting".



trout
* Riches of Salem to pay church debt (D&C 111)
No riches found, debts not paid

JOHN MORMON:
Read v. 11. Apparently, they weren't ready. God's promises are contingent on our obedience. God does not know the future. We have free will.

Read verse 4, "And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands".
It didn't come to pass.


trout
* Apostle Patten to go on mission in Spring 1839 (D&C 114)
He was shot in Oct. of 1838. Wouldn't God have known he was going to die before the next spring?

JOHN MORMON:
God does not know the future. We have free will. The point was that Patten was obeying God. Whether he died as a missionary or beforehand, he would be rewarded for his obedience.

No John Mormon, the clear intent of that section is the foretold mission.



trout
* New gathering place and temple in Far West (D&C 115)
LDS driven out, never built the temple.

JOHN MORMON:
These things are contingent upon the worthiness of the saints.

Where does it make mention of this contingency?


trout
* Build a temple in Nauvoo and house for Smiths (D&C 124)
Temple and house not completed

JOHN MORMON:
These things are contingent upon the worthiness of the Church.


Where does it make mention of this contingency?



trout
* Christ to return in 1890-1891 period (D&C 130:14-15)
Christ did not return.

JOHN MORMON:
Misquote. It was a promise if Joseph lived to be that old.

Right, if Joseph lived to be 58 years old, he would see the Lord come. So, why didn't the Lord come? Was His return dependant upon Joseph?


JOHN MORMON:
Those are reasons to think the Bible's history, archaeology, linguistics, etc. correspond with reality. The Bible avoids being among those books with false history, archaeology, or linguistics, such as the "Ring Trilogy" by J.R.R. Tolkien.

TROUTK13:
So how am I to know that the BOM doesn't have a false history?


JOHN MORMON:
Ask God if the Book is true.

John Mormon, have you asked God if the Rings Trilogy is true?



TROUTK13:
In fact there are many reasons to believe that in fact the BOM does have a false history, or is indeed a fictional history.


JOHN MORMON:
Similar things could be said about the Bible.

Is the BOM's truthfulness dependant upon the Bible?



TROUTK13:
I wouldn't ask God whether or not the LoTR trilogy was true, simply because there are no reasons to believe that the LoTR corresponds with reality.


JOHN MORMON:
If you asked God, I think the answer you'd get, if any, would be "no."

What do you mean you "think" the answer would be no. Are you telling me you haven't prayed about it?



JOHN MORMON:
However, what evidence is there that the DOCTRINE in the Bible is true? For example, what is the evidence that the Golden Rule is a divine principle? Does the fact that Jerusalem really existed in those days and the Greek language really was spoken in those days give good evidence that the Golden Rule is divine? I don't think so.

TROUTK13:
I would agree, but the fact of Jerusalem, and the fact of the Greek language lend credibility to the Bible.There are many reasons to believe that the Bible corresponds with reality, thus giving someone compelling reasons to think that the doctrine contained therein could also be correct.


JOHN MORMON:
Just because there really was a Jerusalem and really was a Greek language spoken in that area 2000 years does NOT provide COMPELLING reasons to believe the doctrine.

No but they are compelling reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality. Whereas the BOM has none.



JOHN MORMON:
How do you decide if religious principle RP described in a religious book is "true" or not? Mormons have a way to determine religious truth regardless of the source. Christians merely claim the Bible is the truth and anything in line with the Bible is true. However, they have no way, apparently, to determine if the doctrine in the Bible is true. They merely take it for granted. Christians fail to avoid the circularity of their reasoning.

TROUTK13:
Deciding whether or not a religious principle is correct isn't the goal of Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
Then how do they know whether they should follow that particular principle or not? Here is just one example:

Jesus told the rich man to give everything to the poor (Matt 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22). Should modern Christians do that? Where does the Bible clarify that rich men don't need to follow that principle?


Have you done that John Mormon?



TROUTK13:
Christ is the Author of the Christian faith, determining whether or not He is "the Way, the Truth and the Life" is the goal had by the seekers of the truth of Christianity. There are many very good religious ethics around that , if followed, would make the adherant a more peaceful, productive member of society. But if Christ is who He claimed to be, the Bible becomes the supreme ethic, and the doctrines contained within it true.


JOHN MORMON:
Not necessarily. It's logically possible that Jesus was who He claimed to be, but the Bible is a false record of that. I don't believe that, but my point is that it's not the BIBLE that makes Jesus the Son of God. Even if the N.T. didn't exist, Jesus would still be the Son of God. Those living in the Americas did NOT have the N.T. yet they believed Jesus was the Son of God.


Which people living in the Americas believed that Jesus was the Son of God?



JOHN MORMON:
You don't seem to understand what "special pleading" is. "Special pleading" is NOT to make a special request of God, but it's a logical fallacy (mistake in reasoning) in which you claim rule R applies in situations S, but you don't apply it consistently. You demand your opponents apply rule R to themselves, but you claim or imply you are exempt from the rule without it appearing to be the case that your situation is sufficiently special.

TROUTK13:
I understand the "special pleading" fallacy, and I do wish to be consistent in my thinking. There are reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality, that fact lends credibility to the message it contains.


JOHN MORMON:
A little bit, but not that much. What really matters is not whether Jerusalem or Zarehemla or the Greek or American Egyptian languages really existed, but whether the life-style works and whether God gives that spiritual confirmation.


Right, so there are many more reasons to think that the Bible is true than there are proofs of the BOM, so I'll wait until at least some of the BOM can be verified. I don't want to hold it to a lower standard.



TROUTK13:
There are no reasons to think that the BOM corresponds with reality.


JOHN MORMON:
Why don't you test the doctrine in your life and ask God for confirmation?


Where does LDS doctrine prescribe that method? And have you used that method on every religious book that you've come across? If not, you'd better get cracking.



TROUTK13:
So to therefore seek God in prayer about the truthfulness of the BOM completely apart from any reasons to think it was true, would be holding it to a lesser standard than I do the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
You seem to think that merely because the external evidences for the Bible (geography, language, etc.) are better than for the Book of Mormon TODAY that, therefore, you have good reason to believe the DOCTRINE of the Bible and reject the DOCTRINE of the Book of Mormon.

That's pretty weak to me, especially since God is willing to confirm that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true.


It's pretty weak to believe that the BOM is the Word of God. Especially when there are no reasons to believe so.





JOHN MORMON:
Here's an example.

If a person claims their scripture is true that doesn't make it true. However, I claim the Bible is true, therefore it makes the Bible true. That would be special pleading, but one you're NOT committing.

The special pleading that you're committing is to put the Bible in a "true because I have not reasons to think otherwise" category distinctly separate from the Book of Mormon and the Quran without giving good reasons why the Bible is sufficiently different from them.

TROUTK13:
Many claims made in the Bible can be verified objectively, I have not found this to be the case with the BOM.


JOHN MORMON:
There are many claims of the Book of Mormon which you have already verified, such as the existence of dark-skinned people, the existence of great buildings, the existence of wars, the existence of religious beliefs in a white God, the existence of beliefs similar to Christianity, etc. In time more external evidences will appear. Book of Mormon archaeology is in its infancy compared with Biblical archeology.

It seems that as time goes by there are less and less reasons to believe the BOM to be what it claims.




JOHN MORMON:
The same goes for Joseph Smith, I find that many of the claims made by Mr. Smith are demonstrably false.


JOHN MORMON:
Like what?

A skeptic could say the same about Jonah. Jonah claimed that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, but it didn't happen.


A skeptic could make that claim, but he wouldn't be correct.



JOHN MORMON:
BINGO! So, you had a special experience with the Bible, huh? That's what Mormons consider a possible confirmation from God that the Bible is true. We claim you can also have special experiences with the Book of Mormon. We deny, however, that experiences with the Quran will come close to matching those of the Bible or the Book of Mormon. There's surely some truth in the Quran, so you might have some good experiences with it, but taken over all, I'm confident you'd find too much in error.

TROUTK13:
Not exactly, I would classify the spiritual experience I had as being had with Christ himself, in much the same way that God spoke with Peter. Peter was asked who he thought Jesus was, Peter replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." after which Jesus explained the process that had taken place whereby Peter came to his knowledge, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." In the very same manner God the Father spoke to my heart, telling me that Jesus was in fact who He claimed to be.


JOHN MORMON:
Good. Did God say or clearly imply to you that the Bible was true and the Book of Mormon was false?

Mormons don't claim Jesus was NOT the Christ or that the Bible is FALSE, but that they have MORE.


Well, God never told me to abandon my reasoning skills, so using reason, there are no reasons to think the BOM to be true, and using reason, there are many reasons to think that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.



JOHN MORMON:
The important question here is how to verify that the DOCTRINE is true.

TROUTK13:
And the first step in that process, as far as the Bible is concerned, would be to determine whether or not Christ is who He claimed to be.


JOHN MORMON:
How do you intend for a Christian to do that without merely assuming that whatever the Bible says is true? Wouldn't it be nice if God were to reveal to them personally the truth of such things? That's what happened to you concerning the truth of Jesus and what Mormons claim can happen to sincere seekers concerning the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Not exactly, God won't make something untrue suddenly true.



JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps a few, but most diligent Mormons get the answer they seek from God and remain good Mormons until the end of their mortal lives. Don't let a few apostates dissuade you from the truth. Remember that there were apostates since the very beginning. Even God could not keep Satan and his angels.

TROUTK13:
How have you concluded that the apostates have received the incorrect answer?


JOHN MORMON:
It contradicts the answer I've received. I recognize that I might be deceived, but it's the best I have to go on. We must live by faith. God will judge me by my heart even if I was mistaken about some things.


So the apostates could be right. Interesting. Is it really the best you have to go on, or are you abandoning your reasoning skills?



JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Troutk13, what if GOD exercised His free will and decided to destroy the Earth before those events could occur? He could do that you know (unless you don't think God has free will.) It's quite clear to me that prophecies are contingent. They are contingent on what free agents like God, Satan, angels, and mortals choose to do.

TROUTK13:
He cannot lie, that would be in direct contradiction to His character.


JOHN MORMON:
He can if He has free will. He FREELY CHOOSES not to lie, but He has the power to do so. If what you say is true then perhaps you think that when Satan "tempted" Jesus it wasn't a temptation at all since it was against the nature of Jesus to sin, is that it? In that case it would seem to be no big deal that Jesus lived a sinless life since that was the natural thing for Him to do. Was Jesus capable of sinning? Could Jesus lie? I believe yes, but He FREELY CHOSE not to.

He cannot lie because it would be against His nature, He can't make square circles either.



JOHN MORMON:
The destruction prophecied [prophesied] by Jonah that "will happen" was averted. The prophecy AS SPOKEN went unfulfilled. The prophecy AS IMPLIED, however, was fulfilled. The prophecy was something like "If you keep doing what you're doing then God plans to destroy you in 40 days."

TROUTK13:
Again, it was a call to repentance.


JOHN MORMON:
Then why can't Joseph's "unfulfilled" prophecies be considered similarly to Jonah's?[box]


Because they are prophesies, not calls to repentance.


[box]
JOHN MORMON:
Is it your position that often when God or His prophet says "X will happen" it's a call to repentance rather than a certain-to-happen prediction of the future?

TROUTK13:
I believe a proper exigesis of each instance is in order.


JOHN MORMON
Can you give enough details of your methodology so someone else could use it to consider statements by Biblical or Mormon prophets or do we have to ask you for your arbitrary decision as to when it's a prediction of the future and when it's merely a call to change what you're doing?

How did your methodology conclude that God's words to David were NOT a prediction of the future and that Jonah's words to Nineveh were NOT a prediction of the future, but the words of Jesus to Peter WERE a prediction of the future and Joseph's words WERE a prediction of the future?


I think we went through that, and why would you conclude that my determinations were indeed incorrect?



JOHN MORMON:
Was it before the rooster crows once or before the rooster crows twice?

If it was a prediction, certain to be fulfilled, then Peter had no free will to alter it. If you read Mark it looks like Peter had free will. He denied once. He goes outside and hears the cock crow (the first time). If he really wanted to avoid denying Jesus two more times then that was a great time for him to resist going back inside. He chose to return, however, and was tempted two more times to deny. He succumbed to the temptations.

However, Jesus was no more claiming that Peter would deny Him three times, no ifs, ands, or buts, than God was claiming that Saul "will come down" and the men of Keilah "will deliver thee up," no ifs, ands, or buts. These were both contingent predictions. Their fulfillment depended on the free will actions of everyone involved.

TROUTK13:
Thats the way you must read it in order to make your point, as I read the text I see Jesus making a predictive prophesy, and David asking a question.


JOHN MORMON:
Given that David's question was basically "what will happen in the future?" why don't you think God's answers were a prediction of "what will happen in the future"?

Do you agree that if Peter had chosen to keep going away after he denied the first time and heard the first cock crow then he would have avoided denying Jesus the other two times before the second crowing of the cock?


Peter said, "I'll never deny you", Jesus said, "Yes you will" no question, no call to repentance, just a prediction of the future. Pretty amazing, considering you don't think God can predict the future, He even guessed right about the rooster eh?



POWELL:
It depends on what brand of Christianity. Perhaps Paul's brand of Christianity didn't need a historical Jesus and an empty tomb.

POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.


TROUTK13:
I think it would have been quite easy in the first century to produce Jesus' body, and put an end to Christianity. Unless His body wasn't to be found.

POWELL:
Some mythicists don't think people were preaching that Jesus was a historical person who had recently lived and died until the second century. Prior to that time they were teaching a Jesus in some realm between heaven and earth.

John Powell

A lot of people say a lot of different things about Jesus, I think that the record is clear that in fact He was an historical figure.

[Trout]

Mr. Powell,

I've been meaning to say thanks,

I appreciate the time you've spent in keeping these threads alive!

troutk13

[John Powell]

TROUT:
* Saints to gather to Independence, Mo. and build Temple (D&C 84)
No longer teach the gathering and temple never built.

JOHN MORMON:
If they are worthy. Mormons do still teach the gathering to tht[sic] area, just not right now. For later maybe.

D&C 84:3-5
. . .

TROUT:
I don't see the words "if they are worthy".


JOHN MORMON:
It's implied.

Where in Jonah are the words "unless you repent"?

TROUT:
* Zion (Independence, Mo.) can not fall (D&C 97:19)
Mormons driven out.

JOHN MORMON:
Misquote. God isn't claiming Zion can't fail, but certain nations will claim it.

D&C 97:19
. . .

TROUT:
Where does it say, "certain nations will claim it"?


JOHN MORMON:
It says "the nations of the earth . . . shall say:" I fear you are becoming so close minded, Trout, that you aren't even reading properly.

TROUT:
* Army to redeem Zion (Independence, MO) (D&C 103)
Mission unsuccessful. V.30-34 God seems to be unsure about how large an army to raise.

JOHN MORMON:
Read v. 5. It's a contingent promise.

TROUT:
Read the rest of the section, it's not contingent.


JOHN MORMON:
Verse 5 says

D&C 103:5
5 But verily I say unto you, that I have decreed a decree which my people shall realize, inasmuch as they hearken from this very hour unto the counsel which I, the Lord their God, shall give unto them.


TROUT:
* Civil War Prophecy (D&C 87)
England and other nations did not join in

JOHN MORMON:
To some extent they did. Some things are contingent upon what other people do.

TROUT:
Right, but they didn't join in to the extent of Joseph's prophesy.


JOHN MORMON:
People have free will. A prophecy only means what God THINKS will happen, not what WILL happen no ifs, ands, or buts. There is cause for very high confidence, but not absolute certainty.

TROUT:
* United Order (D&C 104)
V.1 Commanded as everlasting order; V.48 & 53 dissolved and reorganized.

JOHN MORMON:
Ignorance of Mormon terminology. Words like "everlasting" and "eternal" are synonyms for "God" (D&C 19:10-12). They don't necessarily mean the thing will happen for ever, but that they have a divine origin. People have free will. God must accommodate.

D&C 19:10-12
. . .

TROUT:
Eternal punishment is God's punishment=God's name? And it doesn't mention the word "everlasting".


JOHN MORMON:
I'm confident "everlasting" is another name for God. The point is that what God decrees has a sense of eternal permanence that other things don't have, but it does NOT necessarily mean that it will exist forever without change.

TROUT:
* Riches of Salem to pay church debt (D&C 111)
No riches found, debts not paid

JOHN MORMON:
Read v. 11. Apparently, they weren't ready. God's promises are contingent on our obedience. God does not know the future. We have free will.

TROUT:
Read verse 4, "And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands". It didn't come to pass.


JOHN MORMON:
Verse 11 indicates there is a contingency, but it doesn't matter if it didn't because all God's prophecies are contingent on the free will actions of Himself and others.

D&C 111:11
11 Therefore, be ye as wise as serpents and yet without sin; and I will order all things for your good, as fast as ye are able to receive them. Amen.


JOHN MORMON:
They weren't ready, apparently.

TROUT:
* Apostle Patten to go on mission in Spring 1839 (D&C 114)
He was shot in Oct. of 1838. Wouldn't God have known he was going to die before the next spring?

JOHN MORMON:
God does not know the future. We have free will. The point was that Patten was obeying God. Whether he died as a missionary or beforehand, he would be rewarded for his obedience.

TROUT:
No John Mormon, the clear intent of that section is the foretold mission.


JOHN MORMON:
Irrelevant since all foretellings are contingent. God does not know the future. He and we have free will.

TROUT:
* New gathering place and temple in Far West (D&C 115)
LDS driven out, never built the temple.

JOHN MORMON:
These things are contingent upon the worthiness of the saints.

TROUT:
Where does it make mention of this contingency?


JOHN MORMON:
Maybe that one didn't give it explicitly, but it should be understood.

Where does it mention that Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will turn him in *IF* David remains?

TROUT:
* Build a temple in Nauvoo and house for Smiths (D&C 124)
Temple and house not completed

JOHN MORMON:
These things are contingent upon the worthiness of the Church.

TROUT:
Where does it make mention of this contingency?


JOHN MORMON:
Maybe it doesn't, but it should still be understood.

TROUT:
* Christ to return in 1890-1891 period (D&C 130:14-15)
Christ did not return.

JOHN MORMON:
Misquote. It was a promise if Joseph lived to be that old.

TROUT:
Right, if Joseph lived to be 58 years old, he would see the Lord come. So, why didn't the Lord come? Was His return dependant upon Joseph?


JOHN MORMON:
85. I figured that what it meant was that if Joseph was not martyred and was able to live to that old age then that would mean the world was a lot more prepared and so the events of the Second Coming could occur sooner than things have actually turned out. You see, God does not know the future. He and we MAKE the future.

JOHN MORMON:
Those are reasons to think the Bible's history, archaeology, linguistics, etc. correspond with reality. The Bible avoids being among those books with false history, archaeology, or linguistics, such as the "Ring Trilogy" by J.R.R. Tolkien.

TROUT:
So how am I to know that the BOM doesn't have a false history?

JOHN MORMON:
Ask God if the Book is true.

TROUT:
John Mormon, have you asked God if the Rings Trilogy is true?


JOHN MORMON:
No. I'm confident that it isn't.

TROUT:
In fact there are many reasons to believe that in fact the BOM does have a false history, or is indeed a fictional history.

JOHN MORMON:
Similar things could be said about the Bible.

TROUT:
Is the BOM's truthfulness dependant upon the Bible?


JOHN MORMON:
Sort of. If the Bible is false then the Book of Mormon likely is too.

TROUT:
What do you mean you "think" the answer would be no. Are you telling me you haven't prayed about it?


JOHN MORMON:
Right.

JOHN MORMON:
Just because there really was a Jerusalem and really was a Greek language spoken in that area 2000 years does NOT provide COMPELLING reasons to believe the doctrine.

TROUT:
No but they are compelling reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality. Whereas the BOM has none.


JOHN MORMON:
Again, those aren't COMPELLING reasons to believe the doctrine is true.

JOHN MORMON:
How do you decide if religious principle RP described in a religious book is "true" or not? Mormons have a way to determine religious truth regardless of the source. Christians merely claim the Bible is the truth and anything in line with the Bible is true. However, they have no way, apparently, to determine if the doctrine in the Bible is true. They merely take it for granted. Christians fail to avoid the circularity of their reasoning.

TROUT:
Deciding whether or not a religious principle is correct isn't the goal of Christianity.

JOHN MORMON:
Then how do they know whether they should follow that particular principle or not? Here is just one example:

Jesus told the rich man to give everything to the poor (Matt 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22). Should modern Christians do that? Where does the Bible clarify that rich men don't need to follow that principle?

TROUT:
Have you done that John Mormon?


JOHN MORMON:
I've promised in the temple a willingness to give everything I own to the Church if called upon. It would be hard to do. Early Christians practiced a "united order" and so did early Mormons, but it's a tough law to live.

My point is how do YOU decide it's not something you need to do? I have prayer and my prophets to tell me. All you seem to have is the Bible to tell you. Where does the Bible tell you, Trout, that you don't need to give everything you own to the poor?

TROUT:
Christ is the Author of the Christian faith, determining whether or not He is "the Way, the Truth and the Life" is the goal had by the seekers of the truth of Christianity. There are many very good religious ethics around that , if followed, would make the adherant a more peaceful, productive member of society. But if Christ is who He claimed to be, the Bible becomes the supreme ethic, and the doctrines contained within it true.

JOHN MORMON:
Not necessarily. It's logically possible that Jesus was who He claimed to be, but the Bible is a false record of that. I don't believe that, but my point is that it's not the BIBLE that makes Jesus the Son of God. Even if the N.T. didn't exist, Jesus would still be the Son of God. Those living in the Americas did NOT have the N.T. yet they believed Jesus was the Son of God.

TROUT:
Which people living in the Americas believed that Jesus was the Son of God?


JOHN MORMON:
The good Nephites and Lamanites.

JOHN MORMON:
You don't seem to understand what "special pleading" is. "Special pleading" is NOT to make a special request of God, but it's a logical fallacy (mistake in reasoning) in which you claim rule R applies in situations S, but you don't apply it consistently. You demand your opponents apply rule R to themselves, but you claim or imply you are exempt from the rule without it appearing to be the case that your situation is sufficiently special.

TROUT:
I understand the "special pleading" fallacy, and I do wish to be consistent in my thinking. There are reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality, that fact lends credibility to the message it contains.

JOHN MORMON:
A little bit, but not that much. What really matters is not whether Jerusalem or Zarehemla or the Greek or American Egyptian languages really existed, but whether the life-style works and whether God gives that spiritual confirmation.

TROUT:
Right, so there are many more reasons to think that the Bible is true than there are proofs of the BOM, so I'll wait until at least some of the BOM can be verified. I don't want to hold it to a lower standard.


TROUT:
You don't have to wait for science to catch up. You can ask God now.

TROUT:
There are no reasons to think that the BOM corresponds with reality.

JOHN MORMON:
Why don't you test the doctrine in your life and ask God for confirmation?

TROUT:
Where does LDS doctrine prescribe that method? And have you used that method on every religious book that you've come across? If not, you'd better get cracking.


JOHN MORMON:
Several places, but Moroni 10 and Alma 32 are two of the best.

TROUT:
So to therefore seek God in prayer about the truthfulness of the BOM completely apart from any reasons to think it was true, would be holding it to a lesser standard than I do the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
You seem to think that merely because the external evidences for the Bible (geography, language, etc.) are better than for the Book of Mormon TODAY that, therefore, you have good reason to believe the DOCTRINE of the Bible and reject the DOCTRINE of the Book of Mormon.

That's pretty weak to me, especially since God is willing to confirm that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true.

TROUT:
It's pretty weak to believe that the BOM is the Word of God. Especially when there are no reasons to believe so.


JOHN MORMON:
I and millions of other Mormons have good reasons to believe it.

JOHN MORMON:
Here's an example.

If a person claims their scripture is true that doesn't make it true. However, I claim the Bible is true, therefore it makes the Bible true. That would be special pleading, but one you're NOT committing.

The special pleading that you're committing is to put the Bible in a "true because I have not reasons to think otherwise" category distinctly separate from the Book of Mormon and the Quran without giving good reasons why the Bible is sufficiently different from them.

TROUT:
Many claims made in the Bible can be verified objectively, I have not found this to be the case with the BOM.

JOHN MORMON:
There are many claims of the Book of Mormon which you have already verified, such as the existence of dark-skinned people, the existence of great buildings, the existence of wars, the existence of religious beliefs in a white God, the existence of beliefs similar to Christianity, etc. In time more external evidences will appear. Book of Mormon archaeology is in its infancy compared with Biblical archeology.

TROUT:
It seems that as time goes by there are less and less reasons to believe the BOM to be what it claims.


JOHN MORMON:
Some people disagree with that, but if it's true then I guess it's because Satan is trying so hard to keep the good evidence for the Book of Mormon hidden and God isn't that concerned since His sheep will hear His voice.

TROUT:
The same goes for Joseph Smith, I find that many of the claims made by Mr. Smith are demonstrably false.

JOHN MORMON:
Like what?

A skeptic could say the same about Jonah. Jonah claimed that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, but it didn't happen.

TROUT:
A skeptic could make that claim, but he wouldn't be correct.


JOHN MORMON:
But, Trout, Nineveh was NOT destroyed in 40 days despite Jonah's claim that it would be.

Clearly, the prophecy was contingent on the behavior of the people.

JOHN MORMON:
BINGO! So, you had a special experience with the Bible, huh? That's what Mormons consider a possible confirmation from God that the Bible is true. We claim you can also have special experiences with the Book of Mormon. We deny, however, that experiences with the Quran will come close to matching those of the Bible or the Book of Mormon. There's surely some truth in the Quran, so you might have some good experiences with it, but taken over all, I'm confident you'd find too much in error.

TROUT:
Not exactly, I would classify the spiritual experience I had as being had with Christ himself, in much the same way that God spoke with Peter. Peter was asked who he thought Jesus was, Peter replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." after which Jesus explained the process that had taken place whereby Peter came to his knowledge, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." In the very same manner God the Father spoke to my heart, telling me that Jesus was in fact who He claimed to be.

JOHN MORMON:
Good. Did God say or clearly imply to you that the Bible was true and the Book of Mormon was false?

Mormons don't claim Jesus was NOT the Christ or that the Bible is FALSE, but that they have MORE.

TROUT:
Well, God never told me to abandon my reasoning skills, so using reason, there are no reasons to think the BOM to be true, and using reason, there are many reasons to think that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.


JOHN MORMON:
If you had softened your heart more maybe such would not have been the case.

JOHN MORMON:
The important question here is how to verify that the DOCTRINE is true.

TROUT:
And the first step in that process, as far as the Bible is concerned, would be to determine whether or not Christ is who He claimed to be.

JOHN MORMON:
How do you intend for a Christian to do that without merely assuming that whatever the Bible says is true? Wouldn't it be nice if God were to reveal to them personally the truth of such things? That's what happened to you concerning the truth of Jesus and what Mormons claim can happen to sincere seekers concerning the truth of the Book of Mormon.

TROUT:
Not exactly, God won't make something untrue suddenly true.


JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous. At time t "the Earth exists" is a false statement. At time t+1 day (or whatever) the statement SUDDENLY becomes true.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps a few, but most diligent Mormons get the answer they seek from God and remain good Mormons until the end of their mortal lives. Don't let a few apostates dissuade you from the truth. Remember that there were apostates since the very beginning. Even God could not keep Satan and his angels.

TROUT:
How have you concluded that the apostates have received the incorrect answer?

JOHN MORMON:
It contradicts the answer I've received. I recognize that I might be deceived, but it's the best I have to go on. We must live by faith. God will judge me by my heart even if I was mistaken about some things.

TROUT:
So the apostates could be right. Interesting. Is it really the best you have to go on, or are you abandoning your reasoning skills?


JOHN MORMON:
It's an abandonment of reasoning skills to conclude that you are infallible. I realize that I could be wrong. Maybe God doesn't exist. Maybe the Bible and Book of Mormon are false. I don't think so. I have very high confidence that they are true.

Can you concede, Trout, that maybe you're wrong, that maybe God does not exist or is that too much for your reasoning powers to do?

JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Troutk13, what if GOD exercised His free will and decided to destroy the Earth before those events could occur? He could do that you know (unless you don't think God has free will.) It's quite clear to me that prophecies are contingent. They are contingent on what free agents like God, Satan, angels, and mortals choose to do.

TROUT:
He cannot lie, that would be in direct contradiction to His character.

JOHN MORMON:
He can if He has free will. He FREELY CHOOSES not to lie, but He has the power to do so. If what you say is true then perhaps you think that when Satan "tempted" Jesus it wasn't a temptation at all since it was against the nature of Jesus to sin, is that it? In that case it would seem to be no big deal that Jesus lived a sinless life since that was the natural thing for Him to do. Was Jesus capable of sinning? Could Jesus lie? I believe yes, but He FREELY CHOSE not to.

TROUT:
He cannot lie because it would be against His nature, He can't make square circles either.


JOHN MORMON:
God can't make "square circles" because they are logically contradictory. However, for a being to lie is not logically contradictory. God CAN lie, unless God, by definition, is "a being who cannot lie."

JOHN MORMON:
The destruction prophecied [prophesied] by Jonah that "will happen" was averted. The prophecy AS SPOKEN went unfulfilled. The prophecy AS IMPLIED, however, was fulfilled. The prophecy was something like "If you keep doing what you're doing then God plans to destroy you in 40 days."

TROUT:
Again, it was a call to repentance.

JOHN MORMON:
Then why can't Joseph's "unfulfilled" prophecies be considered similarly to Jonah's?

TROUT:
Because they are prophesies [sic], not calls to repentance.


JOHN MORMON:
Calls to repentance sometimes are prophecies. The prophet says "Unless you repent you will be destroyed." That's both a prophecy and and a call to repentance.

JOHN MORMON:
Is it your position that often when God or His prophet says "X will happen" it's a call to repentance rather than a certain-to-happen prediction of the future?

TROUT:
I believe a proper exigesis of each instance is in order.

JOHN MORMON
Can you give enough details of your methodology so someone else could use it to consider statements by Biblical or Mormon prophets or do we have to ask you for your arbitrary decision as to when it's a prediction of the future and when it's merely a call to change what you're doing?

How did your methodology conclude that God's words to David were NOT a prediction of the future and that Jonah's words to Nineveh were NOT a prediction of the future, but the words of Jesus to Peter WERE a prediction of the future and Joseph's words WERE a prediction of the future?

TROUT:
I think we went through that, and why would you conclude that my determinations were indeed incorrect?


JOHN MORMON:
I don't see a significant difference between Jonah saying "You will be destroyed in 40 days" and "Saul will come down" and "You will deny me three times." They are all prophecies. But, they are all contingent on the free will actions of the persons involved. It turns out the first two did not have sufficient conditions to occur, but the third did. Are you saying the only way to know if it was really a prophecy is IF IT BECOMES TRUE?

In that case, I could argue that the millenial "prophecies" aren't prophecies YET, because they have not YET been fulfilled.

JOHN MORMON:
Was it before the rooster crows once or before the rooster crows twice?

If it was a prediction, certain to be fulfilled, then Peter had no free will to alter it. If you read Mark it looks like Peter had free will. He denied once. He goes outside and hears the cock crow (the first time). If he really wanted to avoid denying Jesus two more times then that was a great time for him to resist going back inside. He chose to return, however, and was tempted two more times to deny. He succumbed to the temptations.

However, Jesus was no more claiming that Peter would deny Him three times, no ifs, ands, or buts, than God was claiming that Saul "will come down" and the men of Keilah "will deliver thee up," no ifs, ands, or buts. These were both contingent predictions. Their fulfillment depended on the free will actions of everyone involved.

TROUT:
Thats the way you must read it in order to make your point, as I read the text I see Jesus making a predictive prophesy, and David asking a question.

JOHN MORMON:
Given that David's question was basically "what will happen in the future?" why don't you think God's answers were a prediction of "what will happen in the future"?

Do you agree that if Peter had chosen to keep going away after he denied the first time and heard the first cock crow then he would have avoided denying Jesus the other two times before the second crowing of the cock?

TROUT:
Peter said, "I'll never deny you", Jesus said, "Yes you will" no question, no call to repentance, just a prediction of the future. Pretty amazing, considering you don't think God can predict the future, He even guessed right about the rooster eh?


JOHN MORMON:
How was it such a great prediction since you seem to think there was nothing Peter could do to avoid it. He did not have free will, I guess.

TROUT:
A lot of people say a lot of different things about Jesus, I think that the record is clear that in fact He was an historical figure.


POWELL:
Maybe we'll discuss this mythical view later in another place.

John Powell

[Trout]

TROUT:
* Saints to gather to Independence, Mo. and build Temple (D&C 84)
No longer teach the gathering and temple never built.

JOHN MORMON:
If they are worthy. Mormons do still teach the gathering to tht[sic] area, just not right now. For later maybe.

D&C 84:3-5
. . .

TROUT:
I don't see the words "if they are worthy".


JOHN MORMON:
It's implied.

Where in Jonah are the words "unless you repent"?

Jonah's words were a call to repentance, not a predictive prophesy.


TROUT:
* Zion (Independence, Mo.) can not fall (D&C 97:19)
Mormons driven out.

JOHN MORMON:
Misquote. God isn't claiming Zion can't fail, but certain nations will claim it.

D&C 97:19
. . .

TROUT:
Where does it say, "certain nations will claim it"?


JOHN MORMON:
It says "the nations of the earth . . . shall say:" I fear you are becoming so close minded, Trout, that you aren't even reading properly.

Most of the time it isn't my mind, it's just my poor reading skills. But I think the section you left out is quite important, in order for the nations to "honor her", she would have to be in existence.

. . ."And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say:. . ."


TROUT:
* Army to redeem Zion (Independence, MO) (D&C 103)
Mission unsuccessful. V.30-34 God seems to be unsure about how large an army to raise.

JOHN MORMON:
Read v. 5. It's a contingent promise.

TROUT:
Read the rest of the section, it's not contingent.


JOHN MORMON:
Verse 5 says

D&C 103:5
5 But verily I say unto you, that I have decreed a decree which my people shall realize, inasmuch as they hearken from this very hour unto the counsel which I, the Lord their God, shall give unto them.


Read verse 6
Behold they shall, for I have decreed it[/box]


TROUT:
* Civil War Prophecy (D&C 87)
England and other nations did not join in

JOHN MORMON:
To some extent they did. Some things are contingent upon what other people do.

TROUT:
Right, but they didn't join in to the extent of Joseph's prophesy.

JOHN MORMON:
People have free will. A prophecy only means what God THINKS will happen, not what WILL happen no ifs, ands, or buts. There is cause for very high confidence, but not absolute certainty.

That's interesting, I've never heard an LDS person say such a thing. Is there anything written by a GA or someone holding a similar office which would expound on this concept?



TROUT:
* United Order (D&C 104)
V.1 Commanded as everlasting order; V.48 & 53 dissolved and reorganized.

JOHN MORMON:
Ignorance of Mormon terminology. Words like "everlasting" and "eternal" are synonyms for "God" (D&C 19:10-12). They don't necessarily mean the thing will happen for ever, but that they have a divine origin. People have free will. God must accommodate.

D&C 19:10-12
. . .

TROUT:
Eternal punishment is God's punishment=God's name? And it doesn't mention the word "everlasting".


JOHN MORMON:
I'm confident "everlasting" is another name for God. The point is that what God decrees has a sense of eternal permanence that other things don't have, but it does NOT necessarily mean that it will exist forever without change.

But it could mean that it will exist forever without change. Yes?

TROUT:
* Riches of Salem to pay church debt (D&C 111)
No riches found, debts not paid

JOHN MORMON:
Read v. 11. Apparently, they weren't ready. God's promises are contingent on our obedience. God does not know the future. We have free will.

TROUT:
Read verse 4, "And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands". It didn't come to pass.


JOHN MORMON:
Verse 11 indicates there is a contingency, but it doesn't matter if it didn't because all God's prophecies are contingent on the free will actions of Himself and others.

Again, is there an LDS church authority that can verify that concept?



TROUT:
* Apostle Patten to go on mission in Spring 1839 (D&C 114)
He was shot in Oct. of 1838. Wouldn't God have known he was going to die before the next spring?

JOHN MORMON:
God does not know the future. We have free will. The point was that Patten was obeying God. Whether he died as a missionary or beforehand, he would be rewarded for his obedience.

TROUT:
No John Mormon, the clear intent of that section is the foretold mission.


JOHN MORMON:
Irrelevant since all foretellings are contingent. God does not know the future. He and we have free will.

How does the leadership of the LDS church stand on God not knowing the future?

TROUT:
* New gathering place and temple in Far West (D&C 115)
LDS driven out, never built the temple.

JOHN MORMON:
These things are contingent upon the worthiness of the saints.

TROUT:
Where does it make mention of this contingency?

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe that one didn't give it explicitly, but it should be understood.

Where does it mention that Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will turn him in *IF* David remains?

Where does it say that the men in fact didn't come down to turn David in, but he wasn't there? David asked God a question.

TROUT:
* Build a temple in Nauvoo and house for Smiths (D&C 124)
Temple and house not completed

JOHN MORMON:
These things are contingent upon the worthiness of the Church.

TROUT:
Where does it make mention of this contingency?

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe it doesn't, but it should still be understood.

Why, have the leaders of the church spoken about this issue?

TROUT:
* Christ to return in 1890-1891 period (D&C 130:14-15)
Christ did not return.

JOHN MORMON:
Misquote. It was a promise if Joseph lived to be that old.

TROUT:
Right, if Joseph lived to be 58 years old, he would see the Lord come. So, why didn't the Lord come? Was His return dependant upon Joseph?


JOHN MORMON:
85. I figured that what it meant was that if Joseph was not martyred and was able to live to that old age then that would mean the world was a lot more prepared and so the events of the Second Coming could occur sooner than things have actually turned out. You see, God does not know the future. He and we MAKE the future.

Joseph Smith also said, "There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes." So it would seem that whether he was around or not he predicted the Lords coming.

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
Those are reasons to think the Bible's history, archaeology, linguistics, etc. correspond with reality. The Bible avoids being among those books with false history, archaeology, or linguistics, such as the "Ring Trilogy" by J.R.R. Tolkien.

TROUT:
So how am I to know that the BOM doesn't have a false history?

JOHN MORMON:
Ask God if the Book is true.

TROUT:
John Mormon, have you asked God if the Rings Trilogy is true?


JOHN MORMON:
No. I'm confident that it isn't.

But you aren't sure? Why did you decide to forego your test of truth on the LoTR trilogy?

TROUT:
In fact there are many reasons to believe that in fact the BOM does have a false history, or is indeed a fictional history.

JOHN MORMON:
Similar things could be said about the Bible.

TROUT:
Is the BOM's truthfulness dependant upon the Bible?


JOHN MORMON:
Sort of. If the Bible is false then the Book of Mormon likely is too.

But is the BOM dependant upon the Bible's truthfulness?

TROUT:
What do you mean you "think" the answer would be no. Are you telling me you haven't prayed about it?


JOHN MORMON:
Right.

How do you know that the LoTR isn't scripture? Wouldn't it be wise to test it by praying?

JOHN MORMON:
Just because there really was a Jerusalem and really was a Greek language spoken in that area 2000 years does NOT provide COMPELLING reasons to believe the doctrine.

TROUT:
No but they are compelling reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality. Whereas the BOM has none.

JOHN MORMON:
Again, those aren't COMPELLING reasons to believe the doctrine is true.

Would you say that the doctrine contained in "Mormon Doctrine" is true, while at the same time believing that it wasn't revelation?

JOHN MORMON:
How do you decide if religious principle RP described in a religious book is "true" or not? Mormons have a way to determine religious truth regardless of the source. Christians merely claim the Bible is the truth and anything in line with the Bible is true. However, they have no way, apparently, to determine if the doctrine in the Bible is true. They merely take it for granted. Christians fail to avoid the circularity of their reasoning.

TROUT:
Deciding whether or not a religious principle is correct isn't the goal of Christianity.

JOHN MORMON:
Then how do they know whether they should follow that particular principle or not? Here is just one example:

Jesus told the rich man to give everything to the poor (Matt 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22). Should modern Christians do that? Where does the Bible clarify that rich men don't need to follow that principle?

TROUT:
Have you done that John Mormon?

JOHN MORMON:
I've promised in the temple a willingness to give everything I own to the Church if called upon. It would be hard to do. Early Christians practiced a "united order" and so did early Mormons, but it's a tough law to live.

My point is how do YOU decide it's not something you need to do? I have prayer and my prophets to tell me. All you seem to have is the Bible to tell you. Where does the Bible tell you, Trout, that you don't need to give everything you own to the poor?

If Christ is who he claimed to be, which I believe is the case, then the words that He spoke are very important, but notice He didn't command everyone to give everything they had to the poor, did He?

TROUT:
Christ is the Author of the Christian faith, determining whether or not He is "the Way, the Truth and the Life" is the goal had by the seekers of the truth of Christianity. There are many very good religious ethics around that , if followed, would make the adherant a more peaceful, productive member of society. But if Christ is who He claimed to be, the Bible becomes the supreme ethic, and the doctrines contained within it true.

JOHN MORMON:
Not necessarily. It's logically possible that Jesus was who He claimed to be, but the Bible is a false record of that. I don't believe that, but my point is that it's not the BIBLE that makes Jesus the Son of God. Even if the N.T. didn't exist, Jesus would still be the Son of God. Those living in the Americas did NOT have the N.T. yet they believed Jesus was the Son of God.

TROUT:
Which people living in the Americas believed that Jesus was the Son of God?

JOHN MORMON:
The good Nephites and Lamanites.

Is there any evidence of these peoples?

JOHN MORMON:
You don't seem to understand what "special pleading" is. "Special pleading" is NOT to make a special request of God, but it's a logical fallacy (mistake in reasoning) in which you claim rule R applies in situations S, but you don't apply it consistently. You demand your opponents apply rule R to themselves, but you claim or imply you are exempt from the rule without it appearing to be the case that your situation is sufficiently special.

TROUT:
I understand the "special pleading" fallacy, and I do wish to be consistent in my thinking. There are reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality, that fact lends credibility to the message it contains.

JOHN MORMON:
A little bit, but not that much. What really matters is not whether Jerusalem or Zarehemla or the Greek or American Egyptian languages really existed, but whether the life-style works and whether God gives that spiritual confirmation.

TROUT:
Right, so there are many more reasons to think that the Bible is true than there are proofs of the BOM, so I'll wait until at least some of the BOM can be verified. I don't want to hold it to a lower standard.


TROUT:
You don't have to wait for science to catch up. You can ask God now.

But what if science has already proven the claims of the BOM to be false?


TROUT:
There are no reasons to think that the BOM corresponds with reality.

JOHN MORMON:
Why don't you test the doctrine in your life and ask God for confirmation?

TROUT:
Where does LDS doctrine prescribe that method? And have you used that method on every religious book that you've come across? If not, you'd better get cracking.

JOHN MORMON:
Several places, but Moroni 10 and Alma 32 are two of the best.

Have you tested every piece of religious literature by the standard of Moroni 10?

TROUT:
So to therefore seek God in prayer about the truthfulness of the BOM completely apart from any reasons to think it was true, would be holding it to a lesser standard than I do the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
You seem to think that merely because the external evidences for the Bible (geography, language, etc.) are better than for the Book of Mormon TODAY that, therefore, you have good reason to believe the DOCTRINE of the Bible and reject the DOCTRINE of the Book of Mormon.

That's pretty weak to me, especially since God is willing to confirm that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true.

TROUT:
It's pretty weak to believe that the BOM is the Word of God. Especially when there are no reasons to believe so.


JOHN MORMON:
I and millions of other Mormons have good reasons to believe it.

There was a time when the majority opinion was that the earth was flat, so merely appealing to numbers doesn't necessarily define truth.

JOHN MORMON:
Here's an example.

If a person claims their scripture is true that doesn't make it true. However, I claim the Bible is true, therefore it makes the Bible true. That would be special pleading, but one you're NOT committing.

The special pleading that you're committing is to put the Bible in a "true because I have not reasons to think otherwise" category distinctly separate from the Book of Mormon and the Quran without giving good reasons why the Bible is sufficiently different from them.

TROUT:
Many claims made in the Bible can be verified objectively, I have not found this to be the case with the BOM.

JOHN MORMON:
There are many claims of the Book of Mormon which you have already verified, such as the existence of dark-skinned people, the existence of great buildings, the existence of wars, the existence of religious beliefs in a white God, the existence of beliefs similar to Christianity, etc. In time more external evidences will appear. Book of Mormon archaeology is in its infancy compared with Biblical archeology.

TROUT:
It seems that as time goes by there are less and less reasons to believe the BOM to be what it claims.


JOHN MORMON:
Some people disagree with that, but if it's true then I guess it's because Satan is trying so hard to keep the good evidence for the Book of Mormon hidden and God isn't that concerned since His sheep will hear His voice.

So does God have those that are His sheep? If so, it would seem that they have had their free will infringed.

TROUT:
The same goes for Joseph Smith, I find that many of the claims made by Mr. Smith are demonstrably false.

JOHN MORMON:
Like what?

A skeptic could say the same about Jonah. Jonah claimed that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, but it didn't happen.

TROUT:
A skeptic could make that claim, but he wouldn't be correct.


JOHN MORMON:
But, Trout, Nineveh was NOT destroyed in 40 days despite Jonah's claim that it would be.

Clearly, the prophecy was contingent on the behavior of the people.

Jonah issued a call to repentance.

JOHN MORMON:
BINGO! So, you had a special experience with the Bible, huh? That's what Mormons consider a possible confirmation from God that the Bible is true. We claim you can also have special experiences with the Book of Mormon. We deny, however, that experiences with the Quran will come close to matching those of the Bible or the Book of Mormon. There's surely some truth in the Quran, so you might have some good experiences with it, but taken over all, I'm confident you'd find too much in error.

TROUT:
Not exactly, I would classify the spiritual experience I had as being had with Christ himself, in much the same way that God spoke with Peter. Peter was asked who he thought Jesus was, Peter replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." after which Jesus explained the process that had taken place whereby Peter came to his knowledge, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." In the very same manner God the Father spoke to my heart, telling me that Jesus was in fact who He claimed to be.

JOHN MORMON:
Good. Did God say or clearly imply to you that the Bible was true and the Book of Mormon was false?

Mormons don't claim Jesus was NOT the Christ or that the Bible is FALSE, but that they have MORE.

TROUT:
Well, God never told me to abandon my reasoning skills, so using reason, there are no reasons to think the BOM to be true, and using reason, there are many reasons to think that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

JOHN MORMON:
If you had softened your heart more maybe such would not have been the case.

Why would the condition of my heart lend credibility to Joseph Smith?

JOHN MORMON:
The important question here is how to verify that the DOCTRINE is true.

TROUT:
And the first step in that process, as far as the Bible is concerned, would be to determine whether or not Christ is who He claimed to be.

JOHN MORMON:
How do you intend for a Christian to do that without merely assuming that whatever the Bible says is true? Wouldn't it be nice if God were to reveal to them personally the truth of such things? That's what happened to you concerning the truth of Jesus and what Mormons claim can happen to sincere seekers concerning the truth of the Book of Mormon.

TROUT:
Not exactly, God won't make something untrue suddenly true.

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous. At time t "the Earth exists" is a false statement. At time t+1 day (or whatever) the statement SUDDENLY becomes true.

I didn't say that very well did I?

Lets say that book b is false i.e. it doesn't correspond with reality. I pray and God tells me that b is true, did God change the content of the b, or did God change reality to match b?

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps a few, but most diligent Mormons get the answer they seek from God and remain good Mormons until the end of their mortal lives. Don't let a few apostates dissuade you from the truth. Remember that there were apostates since the very beginning. Even God could not keep Satan and his angels.

TROUT:
How have you concluded that the apostates have received the incorrect answer?

JOHN MORMON:
It contradicts the answer I've received. I recognize that I might be deceived, but it's the best I have to go on. We must live by faith. God will judge me by my heart even if I was mistaken about some things.

TROUT:
So the apostates could be right. Interesting. Is it really the best you have to go on, or are you abandoning your reasoning skills?


JOHN MORMON:
It's an abandonment of reasoning skills to conclude that you are infallible. I realize that I could be wrong. Maybe God doesn't exist. Maybe the Bible and Book of Mormon are false. I don't think so. I have very high confidence that they are true.

Can you concede, Trout, that maybe you're wrong, that maybe God does not exist or is that too much for your reasoning powers to do?

I certainly can concede that I have doubts about Christianity but they usually don't last long, to say otherwise would be lying. I don't however doubt God's existence.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Troutk13, what if GOD exercised His free will and decided to destroy the Earth before those events could occur? He could do that you know (unless you don't think God has free will.) It's quite clear to me that prophecies are contingent. They are contingent on what free agents like God, Satan, angels, and mortals choose to do.

TROUT:
He cannot lie, that would be in direct contradiction to His character.

JOHN MORMON:
He can if He has free will. He FREELY CHOOSES not to lie, but He has the power to do so. If what you say is true then perhaps you think that when Satan "tempted" Jesus it wasn't a temptation at all since it was against the nature of Jesus to sin, is that it? In that case it would seem to be no big deal that Jesus lived a sinless life since that was the natural thing for Him to do. Was Jesus capable of sinning? Could Jesus lie? I believe yes, but He FREELY CHOSE not to.

TROUT:
He cannot lie because it would be against His nature, He can't make square circles either.

JOHN MORMON:
God can't make "square circles" because they are logically contradictory. However, for a being to lie is not logically contradictory. God CAN lie, unless God, by definition, is "a being who cannot lie."

That was what I was trying to say, God is a being who cannot lie.

JOHN MORMON:
The destruction prophecied [prophesied] by Jonah that "will happen" was averted. The prophecy AS SPOKEN went unfulfilled. The prophecy AS IMPLIED, however, was fulfilled. The prophecy was something like "If you keep doing what you're doing then God plans to destroy you in 40 days."

TROUT:
Again, it was a call to repentance.

JOHN MORMON:
Then why can't Joseph's "unfulfilled" prophecies be considered similarly to Jonah's?

TROUT:
Because they are prophesies [sic], not calls to repentance.

JOHN MORMON:
Calls to repentance sometimes are prophecies. The prophet says "Unless you repent you will be destroyed." That's both a prophecy and and a call to repentance.

Right.

JOHN MORMON:
Is it your position that often when God or His prophet says "X will happen" it's a call to repentance rather than a certain-to-happen prediction of the future?

TROUT:
I believe a proper exigesis of each instance is in order.

JOHN MORMON
Can you give enough details of your methodology so someone else could use it to consider statements by Biblical or Mormon prophets or do we have to ask you for your arbitrary decision as to when it's a prediction of the future and when it's merely a call to change what you're doing?

How did your methodology conclude that God's words to David were NOT a prediction of the future and that Jonah's words to Nineveh were NOT a prediction of the future, but the words of Jesus to Peter WERE a prediction of the future and Joseph's words WERE a prediction of the future?

TROUT:
I think we went through that, and why would you conclude that my determinations were indeed incorrect?


JOHN MORMON:
I don't see a significant difference between Jonah saying "You will be destroyed in 40 days" and "Saul will come down" and "You will deny me three times." They are all prophecies. But, they are all contingent on the free will actions of the persons involved. It turns out the first two did not have sufficient conditions to occur, but the third did. Are you saying the only way to know if it was really a prophecy is IF IT BECOMES TRUE?

In that case, I could argue that the millenial "prophecies" aren't prophecies YET, because they have not YET been fulfilled.

But that is exactly what you have been arguing, the millenial prophecies aren't going to happen no ifs ands or buts. You are saying that the future cannot be known, not by God or by his prophets. So the millenial prophesies in your view must be only possibilities.

JOHN MORMON:
Was it before the rooster crows once or before the rooster crows twice?
If it was a prediction, certain to be fulfilled, then Peter had no free will to alter it. If you read Mark it looks like Peter had free will. He denied once. He goes outside and hears the cock crow (the first time). If he really wanted to avoid denying Jesus two more times then that was a great time for him to resist going back inside. He chose to return, however, and was tempted two more times to deny. He succumbed to the temptations.
However, Jesus was no more claiming that Peter would deny Him three times, no ifs, ands, or buts, than God was claiming that Saul "will come down" and the men of Keilah "will deliver thee up," no ifs, ands, or buts. These were both contingent predictions. Their fulfillment depended on the free will actions of everyone involved.
TROUT:
Thats the way you must read it in order to make your point, as I read the text I see Jesus making a predictive prophesy, and David asking a question.
JOHN MORMON:
Given that David's question was basically "what will happen in the future?" why don't you think God's answers were a prediction of "what will happen in the future"?
Do you agree that if Peter had chosen to keep going away after he denied the first time and heard the first cock crow then he would have avoided denying Jesus the other two times before the second crowing of the cock?
TROUT:
Peter said, "I'll never deny you", Jesus said, "Yes you will" no question, no call to repentance, just a prediction of the future. Pretty amazing, considering you don't think God can predict the future, He even guessed right about the rooster eh?
JOHN MORMON:
How was it such a great prediction since you seem to think there was nothing Peter could do to avoid it. He did not have free will, I guess.

Ok.

[Tophet]

POWELL:
Since Tophet seems to think that merely quoting scriptures proves he's right

Actually, I am citing eyewitness testimony. In this manner the eyewitnesses speak for themselves.

then I will let John Mormon quote Mormon scriptures "proving" that Mormons are right.

Oddly, the Mormon scriptures you cite buttress my points. Was this your intent?



JOHN MORMON:
The important question here is how to verify that the DOCTRINE is true.

TOPHET: 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21


JOHN MORMON:
Good, Tophet. Mormons agree with that, but they think the Book of Mormon counts as scripture and that there are other prophets besides those mentioned in the Bible.

Except I was not discussing the Book of Mormon. I was referring to the Bible, in regards to your earlier statement. The above verses also respond to this:

Christians merely claim the Bible is the truth and anything in line with the Bible is true. However, they have no way, apparently, to determine if the doctrine in the Bible is true. They merely take it for granted. Christians fail to avoid the circularity of their reasoning.

You realize, don't you that by those words Paul and Peter were specifically thinking of the OLD TESTAMENT, right?

Not necessarily. Peter refers to Paul’s epistles as scripture and Paul refers to the Gospel accounts as scripture.

POWELL:
It depends on what brand of Christianity.

TOPHET:
1 Corinthians 1:10-17.
1 Corinthians 3:4-5
Galatians 1:1-12

These verses demonstrate there is no “brand” of Christianity other than itself.


JOHN MORMON:
Scripture Verse:
3 Ne 11:29-30
29 For verily, verily I [Jesus] say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

Not all contention is bad.

Philippians 1:27
Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow,[ 4:3 Or loyal Syzygus] help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Jude 1:3
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.


POWELL:
Perhaps Paul's brand of Christianity didn't need a historical Jesus and an empty tomb.

TOPHET:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4


POWELL:
Just because His body was buried does not mean His body came back to life leaving the tomb empty.

The eyewitnesses say He did.

Perhaps Jesus was resurrected in spirit form.

Luke 24
36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.
44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

John 20
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"


TOPHET:
1 Cor 15:5
5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.


POWELL:
Who did Jesus appear to first, wasn't it to Mary before Peter?

Possibly. But Paul didn’t say “appeared to Peter first,” did he?


TOPHET:
1 Cor 15:6-8
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.


POWELL:
Apparently, the "appearance" of Jesus to Paul was no different than the appearances to the others. These "appearances" were some sort of vision or "seeing Jesus" revealed in the Old Testament or something like that.

No. They were actual physical appearances, as reported by the eyewitnesses in the accounts I listed above. Remember, that's more than 500 eyewitnesses on several occasions.

TOPHET:
1 Cor 15:9-19


POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

TOPHET:
2 Peter 1:16

Why would you ignore Peter's testimony?

TROUT:
A lot of people say a lot of different things about Jesus, I think that the record is clear that in fact He was an historical figure.

POWELL:
Maybe we'll discuss this mythical view later in another place.

Try
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20326&highlight=historicity+Jesus

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I combined Trout's posts together into a single response.

Reply to post 38.

TROUT:
Jonah's words were a call to repentance, not a predictive prophesy.


JOHN MORMON:
What is significantly different about what Jonah said and what God told David about Keilah/Saul and what Jesus told Peter that clearly indicates which ones are predictive prophecies of things that will happen no ifs, ands, or buts, and which are merely calls to change, conditional predictions? If God/prophet says "X will happen" with no "if" explicitly mentioned, how does a reader know that the "if" is implied?

TROUT:
. . . But I think the section you left out is quite important, in order for the nations to "honor her", she would have to be in existence.

. . ."And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say:. . ."


JOHN MORMON:
The point is that those nations will claim it. Those nations aren't prophets, are they?

JOHN MORMON:
Verse 5 says

D&C 103:5 . . .

TROUT:
Read verse 6

"Behold they shall, for I have decreed it"


JOHN MORMON:
So what? God "decreed" that we not commit murder, but that didn't stop us did it?

JOHN MORMON:
People have free will. A prophecy only means what God THINKS will happen, not what WILL happen no ifs, ands, or buts. There is cause for very high confidence, but not absolute certainty.

TROUT:
That's interesting, I've never heard an LDS person say such a thing. Is there anything written by a GA or someone holding a similar office which would expound on this concept?


JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps, but it would be hard to find since they would want to emphasize God's foreknowledge rather than limit it since that's more faith promoting. Joseph Smith taught that God teaches that He's an omnibeing so that we will have faith in Him. These words leave open the possibility that God isn't technically an omnibeing as philosophers might define it, but He would be an omnibeing as far as the typical non-philosopher person would understand.

JOHN MORMON:
I'm confident "everlasting" is another name for God. The point is that what God decrees has a sense of eternal permanence that other things don't have, but it does NOT necessarily mean that it will exist forever without change.

TROUT:
But it could mean that it will exist forever without change. Yes?


JOHN MORMON:
Possibly, but not likely. Apparently, one of the "constant" laws of existence is that things aren't constant, but they change.

JOHN MORMON:
Verse 11 indicates there is a contingency, but it doesn't matter if it didn't because all God's prophecies are contingent on the free will actions of Himself and others.

TROUT:
Again, is there an LDS church authority that can verify that concept?


JOHN MORMON:
With difficulty. You have to realize that GA's tend to focus on basic doctrine and avoid the "mysteries." I had to figure out a lot of this on my own, but I think logic and Mormon scriptures support it.

TROUT:
No John Mormon, the clear intent of that section is the foretold mission.


JOHN MORMON:
In that case, just like the clear intent of Jonah's words is the foretold destruction that didn't happen. You must understand that prophecies are contingent even if they don't explicitly give the condition. Otherwise, God and we have no free will.

JOHN MORMON:
Irrelevant since all foretellings are contingent. God does not know the future. He and we have free will.

TROUT:
How does the leadership of the LDS church stand on God not knowing the future?


JOHN MORMON:
I expect they tend to emphasize His foreknowledge. It might be hard to find a GA who has pointed out the slight imperfection that must be there for us to have free will. That's how the Bible and the other Mormon scriptures tend to do it too.

God's not omnipotent either, Trout, despite what the scriptures say.

Luke 1:37
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.


JOHN MORMON:
There are things that are impossible for God to do. You said so yourself. A "square circle" is something that is impossible for God to make.

JOHN MORMON:
. . . Where does it mention that Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will turn him in *IF* David remains?

TROUT:
Where does it say that the men in fact didn't come down to turn David in, but he wasn't there? David asked God a question.


JOHN MORMON:
The answer was NOT "they will come down" since they were already there! The prediction was "they will deliver you up." That did NOT happen.

Your reading skills seem to deteriorate in just the way so that the scriptures change to say what you need them to say to maintain your position.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe it doesn't, but it should still be understood.

TROUT:
Why, have the leaders of the church spoken about this issue?


JOHN MORMON:
Prophecies associated with the early days of the church like this aren't particularly important to them.

JOHN MORMON:
85. I figured that what it meant was that if Joseph was not martyred and was able to live to that old age . . .

TROUT:
Joseph Smith also said, "There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes." So it would seem that whether he was around or not he predicted the Lords coming.


JOHN MORMON:
Well gee Trout, Jesus said similar things.

Matt 24:33-34
33 So likewise ye [listening to Jesus], when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation [listening to Jesus] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


JOHN MORMON:
If you insist that Jesus was referring to the generation that would see the signs 2000 years in the future rather than those He was speaking to then I could counter that Joseph meant the generation that would be rising shortly before the Second Coming or something like that.

The idea that the Second Coming is "soon" is what has been taught since very early. What I guess it means is that every generation should prepare themselves as if it will happen in their generation. They should not be complacent about it.

Reply to post 39.

TROUT:
John Mormon, have you asked God if the Rings Trilogy is true?

JOHN MORMON:
No. I'm confident that it isn't.

TROUT:
But you aren't sure? Why did you decide to forego your test of truth on the LoTR trilogy?


JOHN MORMON:
The book doesn't even claim to be scripture, but appears to be fiction, so it wouldn't make much sense to ask if it is factual.

TROUT:
Is the BOM's truthfulness dependant upon the Bible?

JOHN MORMON:
Sort of. If the Bible is false then the Book of Mormon likely is too.

TROUT:
But is the BOM dependant upon the Bible's truthfulness?


JOHN MORMON:
I answered that. Is the existence of Jesus as God dependent on the Bible's truthfulness?

TROUT:
How do you know that the LoTR isn't scripture? Wouldn't it be wise to test it by praying?


JOHN MORMON:
I don't KNOW, but since it doesn't even claim to be scripture, it's highly unlikely that it is.

JOHN MORMON:
Again, those aren't COMPELLING reasons to believe the doctrine is true.

TROUT:
Would you say that the doctrine contained in "Mormon Doctrine" is true, while at the same time believing that it wasn't revelation?


JOHN MORMON:
I suppose, but that's unlikely. If the doctrine is true then it should have been revealed by God.

JOHN MORMON:
. . . My point is how do YOU decide it's not something you need to do? I have prayer and my prophets to tell me. All you seem to have is the Bible to tell you. Where does the Bible tell you, Trout, that you don't need to give everything you own to the poor?

TROUT:
If Christ is who he claimed to be, which I believe is the case, then the words that He spoke are very important, but notice He didn't command everyone to give everything they had to the poor, did He?


JOHN MORMON:
So, unless Jesus says that everyone must do X, then you're off the hook? Where does Jesus say that EVERYONE must obey His words? If He didn't, then apparently Christians can pick and choose to do whatever they want. If He did, then you would seem to have the duty to follow what He told the rich man to do.


TROUT:
Which people living in the Americas believed that Jesus was the Son of God?

JOHN MORMON:
The good Nephites and Lamanites.

TROUT:
Is there any evidence of these peoples?


JOHN MORMON:
Sure, there were people living in the Americas.

JOHN MORMON:
You don't have to wait for science to catch up. You can ask God now.

TROUT:
But what if science has already proven the claims of the BOM to be false?


JOHN MORMON:
Then Mormonism would be false. However, I'm confident that's not the case. Science is not about PROOF. Modern scientists recognize that they approach the truth, but they resist claiming they've obtained it.

What if science has already proven the claims of the Bible to be false? What if science has proven that the Sun existed before the plants and that the sky is blue due to the light scattering properties of the air rather than it being water held up by a transparent "firmament" and that it took more than a few days for the Earth to form and that the first humans existed a lot more than merely 6000 years ago and that the first woman was not made from the rib of the first man and there was no universal flood, no talking snakes, no talking asses, no living man-swallowing whales, no walking on water, no turning water into wine, no multiplying of the loaves and fishes, no 3 day dead persons being revived, etc.?

JOHN MORMON:
Several places, but Moroni 10 and Alma 32 are two of the best.

TROUT:
Have you tested every piece of religious literature by the standard of Moroni 10?


JOHN MORMON:
No. Is there a particular piece you think I should consider?

TROUT:
It's pretty weak to believe that the BOM is the Word of God. Especially when there are no reasons to believe so.

JOHN MORMON:
I and millions of other Mormons have good reasons to believe it.

TROUT:
There was a time when the majority opinion was that the earth was flat, so merely appealing to numbers doesn't necessarily define truth.


JOHN MORMON:
It depends on your definition of truth. If truth is what all competent persons believe then it would. Is it true that the Earth is round? You and I think so. Scientists seem to have good evidence for it, but we don't really know, now do we? We might be in the matrix.

On the other hand, to merely claim that your religion has more members than another is not proof that the bigger church is more true.

JOHN MORMON:
Some people disagree with that, but if it's true then I guess it's because Satan is trying so hard to keep the good evidence for the Book of Mormon hidden and God isn't that concerned since His sheep will hear His voice.

TROUT:
So does God have those that are His sheep? If so, it would seem that they have had their free will infringed.


JOHN MORMON:
How so? The fact that the government "has you" as a soldier does not mean you don't have free will to go AWOL. Similarly, if Jesus "has" you as one of His disciples that doesn't mean you can't apostacize later. You have free will, you know.

TROUT:
Jonah issued a call to repentance.


JOHN MORMON:
Where is that SAID or CLEARLY IMPLIED in the text of Jonah? Where did Jonah say or clearly imply that he DID NOT mean that they were going to be destroyed in 40 days, but that they WERE NOT going to be destroyed in 40 days because they were going to repent or something like that?

JOHN MORMON:
If you had softened your heart more maybe such would not have been the case.

TROUT:
Why would the condition of my heart lend credibility to Joseph Smith?


JOHN MORMON:
It puts you in a more receptive frame of mind. People aren't teachable if they aren't humble.

TROUT:
Lets say that book b is false i.e. it doesn't correspond with reality. I pray and God tells me that b is true, did God change the content of the b, or did God change reality to match b?


JOHN MORMON:
God either lied or exaggerated or it wasn't God speaking to you or the book was mistakenly believed to be false.

TROUT:
I certainly can concede that I have doubts about Christianity but they usually don't last long, to say otherwise would be lying. I don't however doubt God's existence.


JOHN MORMON:
Pretty good, but you're holding back on the issue of God's existence.

Is it possible that you're wrong about God's existence? Is it possible that God does not exist?

TROUT:
That was what I was trying to say, God is a being who cannot lie.


JOHN MORMON:
Your concept of God is contradictory. A being who cannot lie is a being without free will. It's a robot, not something to worship.

If entity E is the creator of the universe, including the Earth, and the one who inspired the writers of the Bible to call Him YHWH or Elohim or whatever and who used some genetic engineering to make Jesus, but is capable of lying, should E be called "the God of the Bible" or no?

What is the definition of "God" in the dictionaries? Is it "a being who cannot lie"?

JOHN MORMON:
Calls to repentance sometimes are prophecies. The prophet says "Unless you repent you will be destroyed." That's both a prophecy and and a call to repentance.

TROUT:
Right.


JOHN MORMON:
Then will you concede that Jonah's words were BOTH a call to repentance and a prediction of what will almost certainly happen if they don't?

Will you concede that God's words to David were BOTH a suggestion to flee from Keilah and a prediction of what will almost certainly happen if he doesn't?

Will you concede that Jesus's words to Peter were BOTH a call to avoid the trial and a prediction of what will almost certainly happen if he doesn't?

TROUT:
But that is exactly what you have been arguing, the millenial prophecies aren't going to happen no ifs ands or buts. You are saying that the future cannot be known, not by God or by his prophets. So the millenial prophesies in your view must be only possibilities.


JOHN MORMON:
More than mere possibilities, but less than absolute certainties. Often they are more than 99% probable of happening.

JOHN MORMON:
How was it such a great prediction since you seem to think there was nothing Peter could do to avoid it. He did not have free will, I guess.

TROUT:
Ok.


JOHN MORMON:
I think Peter did have free will. I think Peter could have chosen to not return after denying once and hearing the cock crow the first time, but he chose to remain and ended up denying two more times. Jesus was predicting what almost certainly would happen if Peter went to the trial.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Since Tophet seems to think that merely quoting scriptures proves he's right

TOPHET:
Actually, I am citing eyewitness testimony. In this manner the eyewitnesses speak for themselves.


JOHN MORMON:
Excellent, then let Joseph Smith give His eyewitness account of his first vision of the Father and the Son.

Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History 1:17:
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other---This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!


POWELL:
. . . then I will let John Mormon quote Mormon scriptures "proving" that Mormons are right.

TOPHET:
Oddly, the Mormon scriptures you cite buttress my points. Was this your intent?


POWELL:
Not particularly. I mostly just put Mormon scriptures that kind of said the same thing.

JOHN MORMON:
Given what you said, perhaps you'll see that Mormon Doctrine is Biblical.

JOHN MORMON:
Good, Tophet. Mormons agree with that, but they think the Book of Mormon counts as scripture and that there are other prophets besides those mentioned in the Bible.

TOPHET:
Except I was not discussing the Book of Mormon. I was referring to the Bible, in regards to your earlier statement. The above verses also respond to this:

JOHN MORMON:
Christians merely claim the Bible is the truth and anything in line with the Bible is true. However, they have no way, apparently, to determine if the doctrine in the Bible is true. They merely take it for granted. Christians fail to avoid the circularity of their reasoning.


JOHN MORMON:
Although those N.T. passages were speaking specifically about the O.T., the words apply to scripture besides just the O.T., right?

JOHN MORMON:
You realize, don't you that by those words Paul and Peter were specifically thinking of the OLD TESTAMENT, right?

TOPHET:
Not necessarily. Peter refers to Paul’s epistles as scripture and Paul refers to the Gospel accounts as scripture.


JOHN MORMON:
I agree that Paul's epistles and the Gospels are scripture, but where does Paul SPECIFICALLY claim this?

POWELL:
It depends on what brand of Christianity.

TOPHET:
1 Corinthians 1:10-17.
1 Corinthians 3:4-5
Galatians 1:1-12

These verses demonstrate there is no "brand" of Christianity other than itself.


JOHN MORMON:
The existence of huge numbers of separate denominations of Christianity is a clear rebuttal to your claim. Are you claiming that every sect of self-proclaimed Christians has the same beliefs about God, Jesus, Salvation, etc.?

Granted there can only be ONE true "brand" of Christianity, but the controversy is which, if any of the existing churches claiming to be Christian, is it.

This is precisely the question young Joseph Smith had and why he asked God for the answer and had his First Vision and was called to restore that true "brand" of Christianity to the Earth.

TOPHET:
Not all contention is bad.


JOHN MORMON:
I didn't claim it was. Jesus in the BOM claimed that the "spirit of contention" is not of Him.

Do you reject this? Do you think the spirit of contention IS from God?

TOPHET:

Philippians 1:27
Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel


Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow,[ 4:3 Or loyal Syzygus] help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.


Jude 1:3
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.



JOHN MORMON:
Your method of debate, Tophet, seems to be to quote scriptures without explanation of their relevance. Don't you realize that the MEANING of the passages is often controversial? I can quote Mormon Scriptures too.

POWELL:
Perhaps Paul's brand of Christianity didn't need a historical Jesus and an empty tomb.

TOPHET:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4

POWELL:
Just because His body was buried does not mean His body came back to life leaving the tomb empty.

TOPHET:
The eyewitnesses say He did.


POWELL:
Sure, Tophet, and eyewitnesses claimed that Lehi and his family went to the Americas and Jesus visited them 600 years later. It's right there in the BOM.

POWELL:
Perhaps Jesus was resurrected in spirit form.

TOPHET:

Luke 24
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.

38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?

39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.

41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"

42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."



POWELL:
Who was the AUTHOR of this account, Tophet, and WHERE in the book does the author identify himself?

TOPHET:

John 20
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"



POWELL:
Who was the author of this account, Tophet, and WHERE in the book does the author identify himself?

TOPHET:
1 Cor 15:5
5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.


POWELL:
Who did Jesus appear to first, wasn't it to Mary before Peter?

TOPHET:
Possibly. But Paul didn’t say "appeared to Peter first," did he?


POWELL:
That's the implication. Paul is apparently listing the order of appearances. First Cephas (not Peter), then the twelve, then over 500 at one time, then James, then all the apostles, then Paul.

According to the Gospels, Jesus did not appear to the "twelve" because Judas wasn't with them. Jesus appeared to the "ten" (minus Thomas) and then to the "eleven" (including Thomas). Don't you agree?

TOPHET:

1 Cor 15:6-8
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.


POWELL:
Apparently, the "appearance" of Jesus to Paul was no different than the appearances to the others. These "appearances" were some sort of vision or "seeing Jesus" revealed in the Old Testament or something like that.

TOPHET:
No. They were actual physical appearances, as reported by the eyewitnesses in the accounts I listed above.


POWELL:
Was Paul's experience a "physical appearance" of Jesus or some kind of personal experience? If it was physical why didn't the others see Jesus?

TOPHET:
Remember, that's more than 500 eyewitnesses on several occasions.


POWELL:
If that sounds so impressive to you, Tophet, then perhaps you should be impressed by the multitude of men, women, and children in the Americas who saw the resurrected Jesus in 3 Nephi 11. According to the BOM, they actually touched His body.

TOPHET:
1 Cor 15:9-19

POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

TOPHET:
2 Peter 1:16

Why would you ignore Peter's testimony?


POWELL:
I didn't.

When someone makes a big deal about them not lying or not being deceived then it's an indication that they are more likely lying or being deceived than if they hadn't made such a big deal about it.

How do you know, Tophet, that the Peter of the Gospel accounts penned the words in 2 Peter and not some one else? Because it's in the Bible so it must be true? Then a Mormon could make the same claim of anything in the BOM.

TROUT:
A lot of people say a lot of different things about Jesus, I think that the record is clear that in fact He was an historical figure.

POWELL:
Maybe we'll discuss this mythical view later in another place.

TOPHET:
Try:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20326&highlight=historicity+Jesus


POWELL:
Thanks.

John Powell

[Trout]

John Powell,

I have removed some of the points in my reply where we seemed to be at impasse, if I haven't addressed something I should have, please re-post it.

Thanks


JOHN MORMON:
What is significantly different about what Jonah said and what God told David about Keilah/Saul and what Jesus told Peter that clearly indicates which ones are predictive prophecies of things that will happen no ifs, ands, or buts, and which are merely calls to change, conditional predictions? If God/prophet says "X will happen" with no "if" explicitly mentioned, how does a reader know that the "if" is implied?

The major difference is that Peter is making a prediction of the future by telling Jesus he will never deny Him, Jesus corrects Peter's prognostication by telling him what is going to happen in the next series of events.

TROUT:
. . . But I think the section you left out is quite important, in order for the nations to "honor her", she would have to be in existence.

. . ."And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say:. . ."


JOHN MORMON:
The point is that those nations will claim it. Those nations aren't prophets, are they?

But "she" has to be an independant entity otherwise the nations would be honoring themselves, not her.

JOHN MORMON:
Verse 5 says

D&C 103:5 . . .

TROUT:
Read verse 6

"Behold they shall, for I have decreed it"

JOHN MORMON:
So what? God "decreed" that we not commit murder, but that didn't stop us did it?

God commanded that we not murder, had He decreed we not murder we wouldn't have. In other words, God said don't commit murder, not, you will not commit murder because I said so. But in the case of Joseph's prophesy, God decreed it and it didn't come to pass.

JOHN MORMON:
I'm confident "everlasting" is another name for God. The point is that what God decrees has a sense of eternal permanence that other things don't have, but it does NOT necessarily mean that it will exist forever without change.

TROUT:
But it could mean that it will exist forever without change. Yes?

JOHN MORMON:
Possibly, but not likely. Apparently, one of the "constant" laws of existence is that things aren't constant, but they change.

And if Joseph had entered that caveat in his prophesy, it would have made good sense.


You have mentioned that several of Joseph's prophesies didn't come to pass because they were contingent upon human free will. Have you talked to your Bishop about that? It would seem that you have gone beyond the pale of LDS orthodoxy by making that claim. Certainly someone in an authority position in the church has developed the claim you are making.


Luke 1:37
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.


JOHN MORMON:
There are things that are impossible for God to do. You said so yourself. A "square circle" is something that is impossible for God to make.

The square circle is a mutually exclusive concept, God can do anything that is possible to do.

JOHN MORMON:
. . . Where does it mention that Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will turn him in *IF* David remains?

TROUT:
Where does it say that the men in fact didn't come down to turn David in, but he wasn't there? David asked God a question.

JOHN MORMON:
Prophecies associated with the early days of the church like this aren't particularly important to them.

So when they are found to be erroneous, that is also unimportant?

JOHN MORMON:
85. I figured that what it meant was that if Joseph was not martyred and was able to live to that old age . . .

TROUT:
Joseph Smith also said, "There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes." So it would seem that whether he was around or not he predicted the Lords coming.


JOHN MORMON:
Well gee Trout, Jesus said similar things.

Matt 24:33-34
33 So likewise ye [listening to Jesus], when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation [listening to Jesus] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


JOHN MORMON:
If you insist that Jesus was referring to the generation that would see the signs 2000 years in the future rather than those He was speaking to then I could counter that Joseph meant the generation that would be rising shortly before the Second Coming or something like that.

The idea that the Second Coming is "soon" is what has been taught since very early. What I guess it means is that every generation should prepare themselves as if it will happen in their generation. They should not be complacent about it.

There are those holding to the preterist view of end times who claim that everything Jesus foretold in that section did indeed come to pass.


TROUT:
But you aren't sure? Why did you decide to forego your test of truth on the LoTR trilogy?

JOHN MORMON:
The book doesn't even claim to be scripture, but appears to be fiction, so it wouldn't make much sense to ask if it is factual.

It appears to be fiction, the same could be said of the BOM.

TROUT:
Is the BOM's truthfulness dependant upon the Bible?

JOHN MORMON:
Sort of. If the Bible is false then the Book of Mormon likely is too.

TROUT:
But is the BOM dependant upon the Bible's truthfulness?


JOHN MORMON:
I answered that. Is the existence of Jesus as God dependent on the Bible's truthfulness?

No?

TROUT:
How do you know that the LoTR isn't scripture? Wouldn't it be wise to test it by praying?


JOHN MORMON:
I don't KNOW, but since it doesn't even claim to be scripture, it's highly unlikely that it is.

The same could be said of the BOM, "it's highly unlikely that it is."

JOHN MORMON:
. . . My point is how do YOU decide it's not something you need to do? I have prayer and my prophets to tell me. All you seem to have is the Bible to tell you. Where does the Bible tell you, Trout, that you don't need to give everything you own to the poor?

But in your attacks on the Jonah and David passages, you haven't used prayer to determine what the text intended, you have instead used your own exegesis, why are you holding the Bible to a different standard?

TROUT:
If Christ is who he claimed to be, which I believe is the case, then the words that He spoke are very important, but notice He didn't command everyone to give everything they had to the poor, did He?

JOHN MORMON:
So, unless Jesus says that everyone must do X, then you're off the hook? Where does Jesus say that EVERYONE must obey His words? If He didn't, then apparently Christians can pick and choose to do whatever they want. If He did, then you would seem to have the duty to follow what He told the rich man to do.

There were different expectations for different individuals, He asked His disciples to quit their jobs, but He didn't ask everyone to quit their jobs, He in fact admonished us to work hard.


TROUT:
Which people living in the Americas believed that Jesus was the Son of God?

JOHN MORMON:
The good Nephites and Lamanites.

TROUT:
Is there any evidence of these peoples?


JOHN MORMON:
Sure, there were people living in the Americas.

I was thinking more along the lines of genetic or linguistic evidence.

JOHN MORMON:
You don't have to wait for science to catch up. You can ask God now.

TROUT:
But what if science has already proven the claims of the BOM to be false?


JOHN MORMON:
Then Mormonism would be false. However, I'm confident that's not the case. Science is not about PROOF. Modern scientists recognize that they approach the truth, but they resist claiming they've obtained it.

What if science has already proven the claims of the Bible to be false? What if science has proven that the Sun existed before the plants and that the sky is blue due to the light scattering properties of the air rather than it being water held up by a transparent "firmament" and that it took more than a few days for the Earth to form and that the first humans existed a lot more than merely 6000 years ago and that the first woman was not made from the rib of the first man and there was no universal flood, no talking snakes, no talking asses, no living man-swallowing whales, no walking on water, no turning water into wine, no multiplying of the loaves and fishes, no 3 day dead persons being revived, etc.?

I think there are very compelling reasons that in fact those events took place, and with the lattitude you've given to Joseph Smith's prophesies, I'm sure you do also.

JOHN MORMON:
Several places, but Moroni 10 and Alma 32 are two of the best.

TROUT:
Have you tested every piece of religious literature by the standard of Moroni 10?

JOHN MORMON:
No. Is there a particular piece you think I should consider?

Yes, I think you should consider all of them, no matter how ridiculous their claims might be. If prayer is the way you've determined to discover truth from the universe, you must leave no stone unturned.

JOHN MORMON:
Some people disagree with that, but if it's true then I guess it's because Satan is trying so hard to keep the good evidence for the Book of Mormon hidden and God isn't that concerned since His sheep will hear His voice.

TROUT:
So does God have those that are His sheep? If so, it would seem that they have had their free will infringed.

JOHN MORMON:
How so? The fact that the government "has you" as a soldier does not mean you don't have free will to go AWOL. Similarly, if Jesus "has" you as one of His disciples that doesn't mean you can't apostacize later. You have free will, you know.

"His sheep will hear His voice." implies that there are those sheep who are deaf to God's voice, either God has made His voice audible only to His sheep, or He has made deaf those who aren't of His flock.




TROUT:
Lets say that book b is false i.e. it doesn't correspond with reality. I pray and God tells me that b is true, did God change the content of the b, or did God change reality to match b?


JOHN MORMON:
God either lied or exaggerated or it wasn't God speaking to you or the book was mistakenly believed to be false.

If the LDS concept of God makes Him out to be a being who can lie, then that renders our discussion of prophesy moot, doesn't it?

TROUT:
I certainly can concede that I have doubts about Christianity but they usually don't last long, to say otherwise would be lying. I don't however doubt God's existence.


JOHN MORMON:
Pretty good, but you're holding back on the issue of God's existence.

Is it possible that you're wrong about God's existence? Is it possible that God does not exist?

It's possible that my concept of God is wrong, but I don't find myself doubting His existence.

TROUT:
That was what I was trying to say, God is a being who cannot lie.

JOHN MORMON:
Your concept of God is contradictory. A being who cannot lie is a being without free will. It's a robot, not something to worship.

If entity E is the creator of the universe, including the Earth, and the one who inspired the writers of the Bible to call Him YHWH or Elohim or whatever and who used some genetic engineering to make Jesus, but is capable of lying, should E be called "the God of the Bible" or no?

What is the definition of "God" in the dictionaries? Is it "a being who cannot lie"?

He can't lie because everything He says comes to pass.

JOHN MORMON:
Calls to repentance sometimes are prophecies. The prophet says "Unless you repent you will be destroyed." That's both a prophecy and and a call to repentance.

TROUT:
Right.


JOHN MORMON:
Then will you concede that Jonah's words were BOTH a call to repentance and a prediction of what will almost certainly happen if they don't?

Will you concede that God's words to David were BOTH a suggestion to flee from Keilah and a prediction of what will almost certainly happen if he doesn't?

Will you concede that Jesus's words to Peter were BOTH a call to avoid the trial and a prediction of what will almost certainly happen if he doesn't?

No, because sometimes they are not.

TROUT:
But that is exactly what you have been arguing, the millenial prophecies aren't going to happen no ifs ands or buts. You are saying that the future cannot be known, not by God or by his prophets. So the millenial prophesies in your view must be only possibilities.


JOHN MORMON:
More than mere possibilities, but less than absolute certainties. Often they are more than 99% probable of happening.

So then millenial prophesies are in all actuality, worthless.


JOHN MORMON:
How was it such a great prediction since you seem to think there was nothing Peter could do to avoid it. He did not have free will, I guess.

TROUT:
Ok.

JOHN MORMON:
I think Peter did have free will. I think Peter could have chosen to not return after denying once and hearing the cock crow the first time, but he chose to remain and ended up denying two more times. Jesus was predicting what almost certainly would happen if Peter went to the trial.

John Powell

Jesus knew what the outcome of Peter's choices would be.

[Sheepdog]

Oh Trout13,
Must you constantly pick on us. I would like one of those JHP books.
You know i do find it rather amusing that you people have nothing better to do than
tell people that there religion is wrong and how right you are. Really . . . in the long run, does it really matter to you? you're wasting your lives doing something that
holds little ground for argument. Step out of your little caves and do something worth while! Carpe Diem! Or if you prefer, Carpe Noctum!
would you rather be entangled in a lie if the LDS is not a true Church of Jesus? i for one would love to be corrected if it was made aware to me that i was wrong.

it is not as though, after all, there are any passages about what to do with a false prophet in the Bible :whistle:

[John Powell]

TROUT:
John Powell,

I have removed some of the points in my reply where we seemed to be at impasse, if I haven't addressed something I should have, please re-post it.

Thanks

JOHN MORMON:
What is significantly different about what Jonah said and what God told David about Keilah/Saul and what Jesus told Peter that clearly indicates which ones are predictive prophecies of things that will happen no ifs, ands, or buts, and which are merely calls to change, conditional predictions? If God/prophet says "X will happen" with no "if" explicitly mentioned, how does a reader know that the "if" is implied?

TROUT:
The major difference is that Peter is making a prediction of the future by telling Jesus he will never deny Him, Jesus corrects Peter's prognostication by telling him what is going to happen in the next series of events.


JOHN MORMON:
So what? All that means is that Jesus is better at predicting the future than Peter was. It does NOT necessarily imply that Jesus KNEW the future.

By your reasoning, apparently the people of Nineveh predicted the future better than Jonah did because they realized that they could avoid the destruction.

By your reasoning, apparently David predicted the future better than God Himself because David avoided being turned in by the men of Keilah.

TROUT:
. . . But I think the section you left out is quite important, in order for the nations to "honor her", she would have to be in existence.

. . ."And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say:. . ."

JOHN MORMON:
The point is that those nations will claim it. Those nations aren't prophets, are they?

TROUT:
But "she" has to be an independant entity otherwise the nations would be honoring themselves, not her.


JOHN MORMON:
I thought your point was that she did not exist forever as the nations said she would. Now you're complaining that she never existed in the first place?

JOHN MORMON:
Verse 5 says

D&C 103:5 . . .

TROUT:
Read verse 6

"Behold they shall, for I have decreed it"

JOHN MORMON:
So what? God "decreed" that we not commit murder, but that didn't stop us did it?

TROUT:
God commanded that we not murder, had He decreed we not murder we wouldn't have. In other words, God said don't commit murder, not, you will not commit murder because I said so. But in the case of Joseph's prophesy, God decreed it and it didn't come to pass.


JOHN MORMON:
You seem to misunderstand what the word "decree" means.

www.dictionary.com American Heritage Dictionary:
Decree
1. An authoritative order having the force of law.


JOHN MORMON:
It is God's decree that we not commit murder. A decree is not synonymous with "what will happen."

JOHN MORMON:
I'm confident "everlasting" is another name for God. The point is that what God decrees has a sense of eternal permanence that other things don't have, but it does NOT necessarily mean that it will exist forever without change.

TROUT:
But it could mean that it will exist forever without change. Yes?

JOHN MORMON:
Possibly, but not likely. Apparently, one of the "constant" laws of existence is that things aren't constant, but they change.

TROUT:
And if Joseph had entered that caveat in his prophesy, it would have made good sense.


JOHN MORMON:
I understand what he meant. Probably many others do too.

TROUT:
You have mentioned that several of Joseph's prophesies didn't come to pass because they were contingent upon human free will. Have you talked to your Bishop about that? It would seem that you have gone beyond the pale of LDS orthodoxy by making that claim. Certainly someone in an authority position in the church has developed the claim you are making.


JOHN MORMON:
I've given talks in church about my views and the Bishop didn't seem to think it was deviant enough to need correction. I've been a Sunday School teacher and I wasn't called in to see the Bishop to be corrected for teaching false doctrine.

JOHN MORMON:

Luke 1:37
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.


JOHN MORMON:
There are things that are impossible for God to do. You said so yourself. A "square circle" is something that is impossible for God to make.

TROUT:
The square circle is a mutually exclusive concept, God can do anything that is possible to do.


JOHN MORMON:
That's NOT what Luke quoted Gabriel as saying. Gabriel said that "with God nothing shall be impossible." Can't you read? Obviously, Gabriel was exaggerating. He meant something like nothing that normal people might imagine is impossible is impossible like an old woman giving birth. He was not referring to what a philosopher might come up with like "square circles."

JOHN MORMON:
. . . Where does it mention that Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will turn him in *IF* David remains?

TROUT:
Where does it say that the men in fact didn't come down to turn David in, but he wasn't there? David asked God a question.

JOHN MORMON:
The answer was NOT "they will come down" since they were already there! The prediction was "they will deliver you up." That did NOT happen.

Your reading skills seem to deteriorate in just the way so that the scriptures change to say what you need them to say to maintain your position.


JOHN MORMON:
So, Trout, where does it mention that Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will turn David in *IF* David remains?

JOHN MORMON:
Prophecies associated with the early days of the church like this aren't particularly important to them.

TROUT:
So when they are found to be erroneous, that is also unimportant?


JOHN MORMON:
They don't think they're erroneous.

JOHN MORMON:
85. I figured that what it meant was that if Joseph was not martyred and was able to live to that old age . . .

TROUT:
Joseph Smith also said, "There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes." So it would seem that whether he was around or not he predicted the Lords coming.

JOHN MORMON:
Well gee Trout, Jesus said similar things.

Matt 24:33-34
33 So likewise ye[listening to Jesus], when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation[listening to Jesus] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


JOHN MORMON:
If you insist that Jesus was referring to the generation that would see the signs 2000 years in the future rather than those He was speaking to then I could counter that Joseph meant the generation that would be rising shortly before the Second Coming or something like that.

The idea that the Second Coming is "soon" is what has been taught since very early. What I guess it means is that every generation should prepare themselves as if it will happen in their generation. They should not be complacent about it.

TROUT:
There are those holding to the preterist view of end times who claim that everything Jesus foretold in that section did indeed come to pass.


JOHN MORMON:
I see. Do you agree with them?

If you do, then what about Jesus's claim in Revelation (Rev 22:20) that He will come quickly, but it's been 2000 years?

TROUT:
But you aren't sure? Why did you decide to forego your test of truth on the LoTR trilogy?

JOHN MORMON:
The book doesn't even claim to be scripture, but appears to be fiction, so it wouldn't make much sense to ask if it is factual.

TROUT:
It appears to be fiction, the same could be said of the BOM.


JOHN MORMON:
It CLAIMS to be the Word of God. LoTR does not. Are you going to say the Bible appears to be fiction too then? Why not? Because most of the place names are real places? Don't you realize that fictional stories are usually placed in real locations such as the planet Earth?

TROUT:
Is the BOM's truthfulness dependant upon the Bible?

JOHN MORMON:
Sort of. If the Bible is false then the Book of Mormon likely is too.

TROUT:
But is the BOM dependant upon the Bible's truthfulness?

JOHN MORMON:
I answered that. Is the existence of Jesus as God dependent on the Bible's truthfulness?

TROUT:
No?


JOHN MORMON:
If the Bible is false then what reason would you have to believe that Jesus is God, huh?

TROUT:
How do you know that the LoTR isn't scripture? Wouldn't it be wise to test it by praying?

JOHN MORMON:
I don't KNOW, but since it doesn't even claim to be scripture, it's highly unlikely that it is.

TROUT:
The same could be said of the BOM, "it's highly unlikely that it is."


JOHN MORMON:
No, Trout, because the BOM CLAIMS to be scripture. It's different from LoTR.

JOHN MORMON:
. . . My point is how do YOU decide it's not something you need to do? I have prayer and my prophets to tell me. All you seem to have is the Bible to tell you. Where does the Bible tell you, Trout, that you don't need to give everything you own to the poor?

TROUT:
But in your attacks on the Jonah and David passages, you haven't used prayer to determine what the text intended, you have instead used your own exegesis, why are you holding the Bible to a different standard?


JOHN MORMON:
I do use prayer to decide. I actually pray or at least have a prayerful attitude when I study the scriptures.

You didn't answer my question, Trout. Where does the Bible, apparently your source of what you should do since you reject asking God directly like the BOM suggests, tell you that you don't need to give everything you own to the poor as Jesus told the rich man he should do and which apparently Jesus and the close disciples did.

TROUT:
If Christ is who he claimed to be, which I believe is the case, then the words that He spoke are very important, but notice He didn't command everyone to give everything they had to the poor, did He?

JOHN MORMON:
So, unless Jesus says that everyone must do X, then you're off the hook? Where does Jesus say that EVERYONE must obey His words? If He didn't, then apparently Christians can pick and choose to do whatever they want. If He did, then you would seem to have the duty to follow what He told the rich man to do.

TROUT:
There were different expectations for different individuals, He asked His disciples to quit their jobs, but He didn't ask everyone to quit their jobs, He in fact admonished us to work hard.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Trout, didn't Jesus and the disciples work hard? Does that free people from "taking up their cross" and following Jesus? I don't think so. The Bible alone is inadequate as a guide to what you should do. You need GOD and His representatives on Earth to help tell you what you should obey now, but you reject God's instructions as given in the Book of Mormon because those instructions don't appear quite so clearly in the Bible. They're there, however. Seek and ye shall find.

TROUT:
Which people living in the Americas believed that Jesus was the Son of God?

JOHN MORMON:
The good Nephites and Lamanites.

TROUT:
Is there any evidence of these peoples?

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, there were people living in the Americas.

TROUT:
I was thinking more along the lines of genetic or linguistic evidence.


JOHN MORMON:
You need genetic and linguistic evidence to realize that people lived in the Americas? Aren't bones sufficient evidence for you?

Perhaps you mean genetic evidence that they are Israelites and linguistic evidence that they spoke Hebrew, Egyptian or some derivative of them.

JOHN MORMON:
You don't have to wait for science to catch up. You can ask God now.

TROUT:
But what if science has already proven the claims of the BOM to be false?

JOHN MORMON:
Then Mormonism would be false. However, I'm confident that's not the case. Science is not about PROOF. Modern scientists recognize that they approach the truth, but they resist claiming they've obtained it.

What if science has already proven the claims of the Bible to be false? What if science has proven that the Sun existed before the plants and that the sky is blue due to the light scattering properties of the air rather than it being water held up by a transparent "firmament" and that it took more than a few days for the Earth to form and that the first humans existed a lot more than merely 6000 years ago and that the first woman was not made from the rib of the first man and there was no universal flood, no talking snakes, no talking asses, no living man-swallowing whales, no walking on water, no turning water into wine, no multiplying of the loaves and fishes, no 3 day dead persons being revived, etc.?

TROUT:
I think there are very compelling reasons that in fact those events took place, and with the lattitude you've given to Joseph Smith's prophesies, I'm sure you do also.


JOHN MORMON:
Huh? I don't believe all those things are literal. Some of them were symbolic.

JOHN MORMON:
Several places, but Moroni 10 and Alma 32 are two of the best.

TROUT:
Have you tested every piece of religious literature by the standard of Moroni 10?

JOHN MORMON:
No. Is there a particular piece you think I should consider?

TROUT:
Yes, I think you should consider all of them, no matter how ridiculous their claims might be. If prayer is the way you've determined to discover truth from the universe, you must leave no stone unturned.


JOHN MORMON:
Absurd. You ask the questions you need to ask.

JOHN MORMON:
Some people disagree with that, but if it's true then I guess it's because Satan is trying so hard to keep the good evidence for the Book of Mormon hidden and God isn't that concerned since His sheep will hear His voice.

TROUT:
So does God have those that are His sheep? If so, it would seem that they have had their free will infringed.

JOHN MORMON:
How so? The fact that the government "has you" as a soldier does not mean you don't have free will to go AWOL. Similarly, if Jesus "has" you as one of His disciples that doesn't mean you can't apostacize later. You have free will, you know.

TROUT:
"His sheep will hear His voice." implies that there are those sheep who are deaf to God's voice, either God has made His voice audible only to His sheep, or He has made deaf those who aren't of His flock.


JOHN MORMON:
Or, those who hear His voice are His sheep by definition.

TROUT:
Lets say that book b is false i.e. it doesn't correspond with reality. I pray and God tells me that b is true, did God change the content of the b, or did God change reality to match b?

JOHN MORMON:
God either lied or exaggerated or it wasn't God speaking to you or the book was mistakenly believed to be false.

TROUT:
If the LDS concept of God makes Him out to be a being who can lie, then that renders our discussion of prophesy moot, doesn't it?


JOHN MORMON:
No. It suggests that God does not KNOW the future with 100% certainty, but might be able to predict it with 99.99999999999999999999999% confidence in many cases. To most people the difference is insignificant. But it makes it possible for free will to exist.

TROUT:
I certainly can concede that I have doubts about Christianity but they usually don't last long, to say otherwise would be lying. I don't however doubt God's existence.

JOHN MORMON:
Pretty good, but you're holding back on the issue of God's existence.

Is it possible that you're wrong about God's existence? Is it possible that God does not exist?

TROUT:
It's possible that my concept of God is wrong, but I don't find myself doubting His existence.


JOHN MORMON:
Neither do I.

TROUT:
That was what I was trying to say, God is a being who cannot lie.

JOHN MORMON:
Your concept of God is contradictory. A being who cannot lie is a being without free will. It's a robot, not something to worship.

If entity E is the creator of the universe, including the Earth, and the one who inspired the writers of the Bible to call Him YHWH or Elohim or whatever and who used some genetic engineering to make Jesus, but is capable of lying, should E be called "the God of the Bible" or no?

What is the definition of "God" in the dictionaries? Is it "a being who cannot lie"?

TROUT:
He can't lie because everything He says comes to pass.


JOHN MORMON:
You claimed it, but where's the good evidence? God through Jonah claimed that the city of Nineveh would be destroyed, but it wasn't. God told David that the men of Keilah will turn him in, but they didn't.

JOHN MORMON:
Calls to repentance sometimes are prophecies. The prophet says "Unless you repent you will be destroyed." That's both a prophecy and and a call to repentance.

TROUT:
Right.

JOHN MORMON:
Then will you concede that Jonah's words were BOTH a call to repentance and a prediction of what will almost certainly happen if they don't?

Will you concede that God's words to David were BOTH a suggestion to flee from Keilah and a prediction of what will almost certainly happen if he doesn't?

Will you concede that Jesus's words to Peter were BOTH a call to avoid the trial and a prediction of what will almost certainly happen if he doesn't?

TROUT:
No, because sometimes they are not.


JOHN MORMON:
How can you tell? What indicates whether a certain prophecy is contingent, it's a call to repentance, or if it's a prediction certain to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

TROUT:
But that is exactly what you have been arguing, the millenial prophecies aren't going to happen no ifs ands or buts. You are saying that the future cannot be known, not by God or by his prophets. So the millenial prophesies in your view must be only possibilities.

JOHN MORMON:
More than mere possibilities, but less than absolute certainties. Often they are more than 99% probable of happening.

TROUT:
So then millenial prophesies are in all actuality, worthless.


JOHN MORMON:
Absurd. You seem to think God has to be 100% reliable or He's 0% reliable. If you know what will come up next in a Las Vegas game with 99.9999999999% certainty do you consider that worthless? Of course not. You could make a killing even if you were wrong once in a trillion times.

JOHN MORMON:
How was it such a great prediction since you seem to think there was nothing Peter could do to avoid it. He did not have free will, I guess.

TROUT:
Ok.

JOHN MORMON:
I think Peter did have free will. I think Peter could have chosen to not return after denying once and hearing the cock crow the first time, but he chose to remain and ended up denying two more times. Jesus was predicting what almost certainly would happen if Peter went to the trial.

TROUT:
Jesus knew what the outcome of Peter's choices would be.


JOHN MORMON:
Then Peter could not have done otherwise. Even if Peter had tried to flee from the area and tried to avoid speaking to anyone, he could not have avoided his fate.

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
So what? All that means is that Jesus is better at predicting the future than Peter was. It does NOT necessarily imply that Jesus KNEW the future.

By your reasoning, apparently the people of Nineveh predicted the future better than Jonah did because they realized that they could avoid the destruction.

By your reasoning, apparently David predicted the future better than God Himself because David avoided being turned in by the men of Keilah.



TROUT:

You asked what the difference was, I told you. Peter had to deny Him, because other prophecies were contingent upon all the disciples denying Jesus.

Matthew 26:31 Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: " `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'"(From Zechariah 13)



And, Jonah was issuing a call to repentance. And, David was asking a question.



JOHN MORMON:
I thought your point was that she did not exist forever as the nations said she would. Now you're complaining that she never existed in the first place?



TROUT:

In order for your point to make sense, “she” would have to exist so that other nations could then honor her.



JOHN MORMON:
It is God's decree that we not commit murder. A decree is not synonymous with "what will happen."



TROUT:

God has commanded me not to sin; I have failed to obey that command, but when God issues a decree, it will come to pass.



JOHN MORMON:
I understand what he meant. Probably many others do too.



TROUT:

Too bad he didn’t make it clear.



JOHN MORMON:
I've given talks in church about my views and the Bishop didn't seem to think it was deviant enough to need correction. I've been a Sunday School teacher and I wasn't called in to see the Bishop to be corrected for teaching false doctrine.



TROUT:

Then it should be easy to cite a GA or someone holding similar authority in the church who is in agreement with your theory.



JOHN MORMON:
That's NOT what Luke quoted Gabriel as saying. Gabriel said that "with God nothing shall be impossible." Can't you read? Obviously, Gabriel was exaggerating. He meant something like nothing that normal people might imagine is impossible is impossible like an old woman giving birth. He was not referring to what a philosopher might come up with like "square circles."



TROUT:

The concept of square circles isn’t a coherent one, Gabriel wasn’t exaggerating, he expected those listening to have a basic understanding of the word impossible. Explain how not being able to do something that isn’t possible, diminishes God’s ability to do anything.



JOHN MORMON:
So, Trout, where does it mention that Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will turn David in *IF* David remains?



TROUT:

Please explain to me that in fact David wasn’t asking a question.



JOHN MORMON:
They don't think they're erroneous.



TROUT:

Right, they hold prophets to a higher standard than you seem to.



JOHN MORMON:
I see. Do you agree with them?



TROUT:

Partially.



JOHN MORMON:
It CLAIMS to be the Word of God. LoTR does not. Are you going to say the Bible appears to be fiction too then? Why not? Because most of the place names are real places? Don't you realize that fictional stories are usually placed in real locations such as the planet Earth?



TROUT:

So the only qualification missing from the Rings Trilogy is a claim to be the Word of God. How do you know the claim isn’t just implied?



JOHN MORMON:
If the Bible is false then what reason would you have to believe that Jesus is God, huh?



TROUT:

He can be God, regardless of my reasons, His station in the universe isn’t contingent on my reasoning.



JOHN MORMON:
No, Trout, because the BOM CLAIMS to be scripture. It's different from LoTR.



TROUT:

So then, the two works are equal in all other respects?



JOHN MORMON:
I do use prayer to decide. I actually pray or at least have a prayerful attitude when I study the scriptures.



TROUT:

Prayerful study will not make Joseph’s un-fulfilled prophecies suddenly true.

You didn't answer my question, Trout. Where does the Bible, apparently your source of what you should do since you reject asking God directly like the BOM suggests, tell you that you don't need to give everything you own to the poor as Jesus told the rich man he should do and which apparently Jesus and the close disciples did.



JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Trout, didn't Jesus and the disciples work hard? Does that free people from "taking up their cross" and following Jesus? I don't think so. The Bible alone is inadequate as a guide to what you should do. You need GOD and His representatives on Earth to help tell you what you should obey now, but you reject God's instructions as given in the Book of Mormon because those instructions don't appear quite so clearly in the Bible. They're there, however. Seek and ye shall find.



TROUT:

John Mormon, do you carry a cross everywhere you go?



JOHN MORMON:
You need genetic and linguistic evidence to realize that people lived in the Americas? Aren't bones sufficient evidence for you?

Perhaps you mean genetic evidence that they are Israelites and linguistic evidence that they spoke Hebrew, Egyptian or some derivative of them.



TROUT:

That would help.



JOHN MORMON:
Huh? I don't believe all those things are literal. Some of them were symbolic.



TROUT:

Have you discussed that with your Bishop? Or can you cite authoritative LDS teaching affirming that those acts you spoke of were symbolic?



JOHN MORMON:
Absurd. You ask the questions you need to ask



TROUT:

And how do you know which questions to ask? It certainly isn’t by study, otherwise that would apply to the BOM also. So what determines which books you pray about and which books you don’t pray about?



JOHN MORMON:
Or, those who hear His voice are His sheep by definition.



TROUT:

Then why don’t all hear His voice, certainly He is able to speak loudly enough so that all could hear.



JOHN MORMON:
No. It suggests that God does not KNOW the future with 100% certainty, but might be able to predict it with 99.99999999999999999999999% confidence in many cases. To most people the difference is insignificant. But it makes it possible for free will to exist.



TROUT:

That’s an interesting number John, how did you come up with it? I did some math also, of the 10 prophecies in question, you have deemed four of them to have not come to pass because of their contingency upon human free will, lets see, 6/10=60% I can get a lot better odds than that in Vegas. If God is only 60%, He therefore cannot be considered trustworthy.



JOHN MORMON:
You claimed it, but where's the good evidence? God through Jonah claimed that the city of Nineveh would be destroyed, but it wasn't. God told David that the men of Keilah will turn him in, but they didn't.



TROUT:

There is no good evidence to think that those two instances were predictive prophecy.



JOHN MORMON:
How can you tell? What indicates whether a certain prophecy is contingent, it's a call to repentance, or if it's a prediction certain to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?



TROUT:

Proper exegesis. Each passage should be looked at.



JOHN MORMON:
Absurd. You seem to think God has to be 100% reliable or He's 0% reliable. If you know what will come up next in a Las Vegas game with 99.9999999999% certainty do you consider that worthless? Of course not. You could make a killing even if you were wrong once in a trillion times.



TROUT:

6 out of 10 makes Him a worthless predictor of events. The Indian casino near my house pays 96%.



JOHN MORMON:
Then Peter could not have done otherwise. Even if Peter had tried to flee from the area and tried to avoid speaking to anyone, he could not have avoided his fate.



TROUT:

Had he fled, he might have been swallowed by a great fish, brought back, and made to face his fate.

[Tophet]

TROUT:
A lot of people say a lot of different things about Jesus, I think that the record is clear that in fact He was an historical figure.

POWELL:
Maybe we'll discuss this mythical view later in another place.

TOPHET:
Try:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...storicity+Jesus



POWELL:
Thanks.

John Powell


You're welcome. OK, John, my response can be found at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20326, "Historical Evidence of Jesus Christ"

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
So what? All that means is that Jesus is better at predicting the future than Peter was. It does NOT necessarily imply that Jesus KNEW the future.

By your reasoning, apparently the people of Nineveh predicted the future better than Jonah did because they realized that they could avoid the destruction.

By your reasoning, apparently David predicted the future better than God Himself because David avoided being turned in by the men of Keilah.

TROUT:
You asked what the difference was, I told you. Peter had to deny Him, because other prophecies were contingent upon all the disciples denying Jesus.


JOHN MORMON:
It's controversial with us whether those prophecies, as spoken, HAD TO BE FULFILLED!

TROUT:

Matthew 26:31
Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: " `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'"(From Zechariah 13)



JOHN MORMON:
Well gee Trout, even if we were to agree that prophecy in Zech 13 had to be fulfilled, no ifs, ands, or buts, that still would NOT necessitate that Peter deny Jesus three times before the cock crows the second time. All that was needed was a significant number of disciples being scattered. In fact, it didn't even require that ANY of the 11 be scattered.

TROUT:
And, Jonah was issuing a call to repentance. And, David was asking a question.


JOHN MORMON:
Where did Jonah tell the people of Nineveh to repent?

It's possible for the answer to a question to be a prophecy, Trout, don't you agree? So, just because David was asking a question does not necessarily mean that what God answered was NOT a prophecy. Words in future tense are usually predictions of the future. They generally represent what the person THINKS and EXPECTS will happen. If God THINKS that Saul will come down and says so then that constitutes a prophecy, no?

If you were to ask God, "When will I die, Lord?" and He were to reply with "When you reach the age of 85." Should you consider that a prophecy of when you will die that will happen no ifs, ands, or buts, or a prediction that's contingent on what you and others do or an answer to your question that is NOT a prediction or prophecy or what?

JOHN MORMON:
I thought your point was that she did not exist forever as the nations said she would. Now you're complaining that she never existed in the first place?

TROUT:
In order for your point to make sense, "she" would have to exist so that other nations could then honor her.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, maybe she will exist in the future.

JOHN MORMON:
It is God's decree that we not commit murder. A decree is not synonymous with "what will happen."

TROUT:
God has commanded me not to sin; I have failed to obey that command, but when God issues a decree, it will come to pass.


JOHN MORMON:
If the King issues a decree, Trout, is that an order, a commandment to his subjects, or a prediction of what he expects will happen or what?

JOHN MORMON:
I understand what he meant. Probably many others do too.

TROUT:
Too bad he didn’t make it clear.

JOHN MORMON:
I've given talks in church about my views and the Bishop didn't seem to think it was deviant enough to need correction. I've been a Sunday School teacher and I wasn't called in to see the Bishop to be corrected for teaching false doctrine.

TROUT:
Then it should be easy to cite a GA or someone holding similar authority in the church who is in agreement with your theory.


JOHN MORMON:
Remember that GA's tend to focus on the BASICS. They tend to avoid the mysteries, so it's not as easy as you suggest.

JOHN MORMON:
That's NOT what Luke quoted Gabriel as saying. Gabriel said that "with God nothing shall be impossible." Can't you read? Obviously, Gabriel was exaggerating. He meant something like nothing that normal people might imagine is impossible is impossible like an old woman giving birth. He was not referring to what a philosopher might come up with like "square circles."

TROUT:
The concept of square circles isn’t a coherent one, Gabriel wasn’t exaggerating, he expected those listening to have a basic understanding of the word impossible. Explain how not being able to do something that isn’t possible, diminishes God’s ability to do anything.


JOHN MORMON:
But, Trout, Gabriel did NOT say that God can do everything that is possible, but he said that there is nothing that is impossible. Gabriel exaggerated. Some things are impossible.

JOHN MORMON:
So, Trout, where does it mention that Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will turn David in *IF* David remains?

TROUT:
Please explain to me that in fact David wasn’t asking a question.


JOHN MORMON:
I concede that David asked a question, but you won't concede that when God answers the question with "X will happen," that reply constitutes a prophecy of what will happen.

JOHN MORMON:
They don't think they're erroneous.

TROUT:
Right, they hold prophets to a higher standard than you seem to.


JOHN MORMON:
Maybe.

JOHN MORMON:
I see. Do you agree with them [preterists]?

TROUT:
Partially.

JOHN MORMON:
It CLAIMS to be the Word of God. LoTR does not. Are you going to say the Bible appears to be fiction too then? Why not? Because most of the place names are real places? Don't you realize that fictional stories are usually placed in real locations such as the planet Earth?

TROUT:
So the only qualification missing from the Rings Trilogy is a claim to be the Word of God. How do you know the claim isn’t just implied?


JOHN MORMON:
Straw man. I did not say "only." If I meant it I would have said it.

I don't KNOW for sure, but I'm pretty confident that the author did not imply that it's the word of God.

What is said in the LoTR that would justify claiming such an implication?

JOHN MORMON:
If the Bible is false then what reason would you have to believe that Jesus is God, huh?

TROUT:
He can be God, regardless of my reasons, His station in the universe isn’t contingent on my reasoning.


JOHN MORMON:
Yes, but what reason would YOU have to believe He held an important station in the universe if the Bible were false? If you were to cease to accept the Bible as true wouldn't you likely also cease to consider Jesus as God?

JOHN MORMON:
No, Trout, because the BOM CLAIMS to be scripture. It's different from LoTR.

TROUT:
So then, the two works are equal in all other respects?


JOHN MORMON:
No.

JOHN MORMON:
I do use prayer to decide. I actually pray or at least have a prayerful attitude when I study the scriptures.

TROUT:
Prayerful study will not make Joseph’s un-fulfilled prophecies suddenly true.

JOHN MORMON:
You didn't answer my question, Trout. Where does the Bible, apparently your source of what you should do since you reject asking God directly like the BOM suggests, tell you that you don't need to give everything you own to the poor as Jesus told the rich man he should do and which apparently Jesus and the close disciples did.

. . .

Well, gee, Trout, didn't Jesus and the disciples work hard? Does that free people from "taking up their cross" and following Jesus? I don't think so. The Bible alone is inadequate as a guide to what you should do. You need GOD and His representatives on Earth to help tell you what you should obey now, but you reject God's instructions as given in the Book of Mormon because those instructions don't appear quite so clearly in the Bible. They're there, however. Seek and ye shall find.

TROUT:
John Mormon, do you carry a cross everywhere you go?


JOHN MORMON:
No, but I recognize OTHER methods to determine what I should do concerning statements in the Bible than merely doing whatever is said. I recognize personal revelation from God. You, however, are rejecting that, so why don't YOU give everything you own to the poor and why don't YOU carry a cross wherever you go? Where does the Bible indicate that you don't need to do that?

The answer is right in front of you, Trout, but you won't admit to it. What you do is look at what OTHER CHRISTIANS do and assume they are justified by God in NOT giving everything they own to the poor and in NOT carrying a cross everywhere they go.

JOHN MORMON:
You need genetic and linguistic evidence to realize that people lived in the Americas? Aren't bones sufficient evidence for you?

Perhaps you mean genetic evidence that they are Israelites and linguistic evidence that they spoke Hebrew, Egyptian or some derivative of them.

TROUT:
That would help.


JOHN MORMON:
Sorry, but I don't know much about that.

JOHN MORMON:
Huh? I don't believe all those things are literal. Some of them were symbolic.

TROUT:
Have you discussed that with your Bishop? Or can you cite authoritative LDS teaching affirming that those acts you spoke of were symbolic?


JOHN MORMON:
I didn't need to. In some cases it's controversial with Mormons which statements in the Bible are figurative and which are literal. For example, some believe Noah's flood was universal. Others do not.

However, do you agree that some things said in the Bible are figurative rather than literal?

JOHN MORMON:
Absurd. You ask the questions you need to ask . . .

TROUT:
And how do you know which questions to ask? It certainly isn’t by study, otherwise that would apply to the BOM also. So what determines which books you pray about and which books you don’t pray about?


JOHN MORMON:
I pray about the ones I have serious religious questions about.

JOHN MORMON:
Or, those who hear His voice are His sheep by definition.

TROUT:
Then why don’t all hear His voice, certainly He is able to speak loudly enough so that all could hear.


JOHN MORMON:
People have their free agency. Some want to progress their own way rather than the Lord's way. Satan heard, but rebelled.

JOHN MORMON:
No. It suggests that God does not KNOW the future with 100% certainty, but might be able to predict it with 99.99999999999999999999999% confidence in many cases. To most people the difference is insignificant. But it makes it possible for free will to exist.

TROUT:
That’s an interesting number John, how did you come up with it?


JOHN MORMON:
I just added a bunch of 9's.

TROUT:
I did some math also, of the 10 prophecies in question, you have deemed four of them to have not come to pass because of their contingency upon human free will, lets see, 6/10=60% I can get a lot better odds than that in Vegas. If God is only 60%, He therefore cannot be considered trustworthy.


JOHN MORMON:
In a sense, even the problem ones we've considered were fulfilled since there are implied contingencies.

Notice that I picked a couple of the more problematic cases. I am ignoring the many billions or trillions of prophecies / promises that God has made to individuals in their personal lives and those few recorded in the scriptures that have been fulfilled as stated.

JOHN MORMON:
You claimed it, but where's the good evidence? God through Jonah claimed that the city of Nineveh would be destroyed, but it wasn't. God told David that the men of Keilah will turn him in, but they didn't.

TROUT:
There is no good evidence to think that those two instances were predictive prophecy.


JOHN MORMON:
Why not, Trout? They were spoken in the future tense, so what makes them signficantly different from other words spoken by God in the future tense?

JOHN MORMON:
How can you tell? What indicates whether a certain prophecy is contingent, it's a call to repentance, or if it's a prediction certain to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

TROUT:
Proper exegesis. Each passage should be looked at.


JOHN MORMON:
What is in the David and Jonah examples that indicates they were NOT predictions, but that of Peter WAS?

JOHN MORMON:
Absurd. You seem to think God has to be 100% reliable or He's 0% reliable. If you know what will come up next in a Las Vegas game with 99.9999999999% certainty do you consider that worthless? Of course not. You could make a killing even if you were wrong once in a trillion times.

TROUT:
6 out of 10 makes Him a worthless predictor of events. The Indian casino near my house pays 96%.


JOHN MORMON:
You're betraying statistical ignorance. If you are 60% reliable in your predictions then you will be right more often than wrong. That's useful.

JOHN MORMON:
Then Peter could not have done otherwise. Even if Peter had tried to flee from the area and tried to avoid speaking to anyone, he could not have avoided his fate.

TROUT:
Had he fled, he might have been swallowed by a great fish, brought back, and made to face his fate.


JOHN MORMON:
GOOD!

What if Peter had tried to commit suicide or cut off his tongue in an attempt to avoid his fate? Would God have had to prevent Peter from the surgery or from dying or would have had to heal Peter's tongue or resurrect Peter if he had succeeded?

If yes, then why did God let the people of Nineveh repent and why did God let David leave the city of Keilah, but He did NOT let Peter refuse to go to the trial?

John Powell

[Trout]

TROUT:
And, Jonah was issuing a call to repentance. And, David was asking a question.

JOHN MORMON:
Where did Jonah tell the people of Nineveh to repent?

It's possible for the answer to a question to be a prophecy, Trout, don't you agree? So, just because David was asking a question does not necessarily mean that what God answered was NOT a prophecy. Words in future tense are usually predictions of the future. They generally represent what the person THINKS and EXPECTS will happen. If God THINKS that Saul will come down and says so then that constitutes a prophecy, no?

If you were to ask God, "When will I die, Lord?" and He were to reply with "When you reach the age of 85." Should you consider that a prophecy of when you will die that will happen no ifs, ands, or buts, or a prediction that's contingent on what you and others do or an answer to your question that is NOT a prediction or prophecy or what?

TROUT:
Yes it's possible, and it has occured that in fact the answers to questions have been predective prophecies. But the David passage isn't one of them. God knew that Saul and his men would deliver David up, He made that clear when answering David's question, and had David stayed there he would have been delivered up. Funny, supposedly the same God didn't know that Joseph Smith wouldn't live to be 85.

Jonah was sent to Nineveh to preach (Jonah 3:2), and preach he did, his call to repentance went like this, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown". Now you may not think that statement to be a call to repentance but everyone in Nineveh did, from the king on down.

So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.


Again, God's wrath was averted, there is a pattern He wants us to understand, repentance forgiveness, repentance forgiveness.



JOHN MORMON:
Well, maybe she will exist in the future.

TROUT:
The prophesy certainly implies that she will from that point forward be in existence.


JOHN MORMON:
If the King issues a decree, Trout, is that an order, a commandment to his subjects, or a prediction of what he expects will happen or what?

TROUT:
When God commands, "You shall not murder", that is a call to a certain kind of behavior. When God, by divine fiat proclaims, "Heaven and earth will pass away" that divine decree will come to pass, apart from my behavior.


JOHN MORMON:
Remember that GA's tend to focus on the BASICS. They tend to avoid the mysteries, so it's not as easy as you suggest.

TROUT:
Maybe my standard is too high, can you cite any LDS authors who can butress your claim that God doesn't have a thourough knowledge of the future, and that prophecy is contingent upon the free will man has? Or are you flying solo, beyond the pale of church orthodoxy?



JOHN MORMON:
I concede that David asked a question, but you won't concede that when God answers the question with "X will happen," that reply constitutes a prophecy of what will happen.

TROUT:
The answer to David's question wasn't a divine decree, David was asking for advice, God answered him.


JOHN MORMON:
Straw man. I did not say "only." If I meant it I would have said it.

I don't KNOW for sure, but I'm pretty confident that the author did not imply that it's the word of God.

What is said in the LoTR that would justify claiming such an implication?

TROUT:
John Mormon, just pray about it, don't worry about what it says, it's implied in there somewhere, come on, stop playing around and pray about it. You know the only way to know truth is by prayer. Why do you suddenly want to analyze the LoTR text?


JOHN MORMON:
Yes, but what reason would YOU have to believe He held an important station in the universe if the Bible were false? If you were to cease to accept the Bible as true wouldn't you likely also cease to consider Jesus as God?

TROUT:
According to the Matthew, God the Father revealed Christ to me, in much the same way Peter found out.



TROUT:
John Mormon, do you carry a cross everywhere you go?


JOHN MORMON:
No, but I recognize OTHER methods to determine what I should do concerning statements in the Bible than merely doing whatever is said. I recognize personal revelation from God. You, however, are rejecting that, so why don't YOU give everything you own to the poor and why don't YOU carry a cross wherever you go? Where does the Bible indicate that you don't need to do that?

The answer is right in front of you, Trout, but you won't admit to it. What you do is look at what OTHER CHRISTIANS do and assume they are justified by God in NOT giving everything they own to the poor and in NOT carrying a cross everywhere they go.

TROUT:
I haven't said that I don't recognize personal revelation, in fact that's how I came to know Christ. And I'm glad you don't take everything in the Bible literally, neither do I. The Christian is supposed to give everything he/she owns to God, let Him have stewardship of our assets and some Christians will be asked to give all to the poor, some won't.



JOHN MORMON:
Why not, Trout? They were spoken in the future tense, so what makes them signficantly different from other words spoken by God in the future tense?

TROUT:
Jonah issued a call to repentance, and David asked for advice.



JOHN MORMON:
You're betraying statistical ignorance. If you are 60% reliable in your predictions then you will be right more often than wrong. That's useful.

TROUT:
Useful for some things, but not for everything, you wouldn't want to risk your life on a 60% chance.


TROUT:
Had he fled, he might have been swallowed by a great fish, brought back, and made to face his fate.


JOHN MORMON:
GOOD!

What if Peter had tried to commit suicide or cut off his tongue in an attempt to avoid his fate? Would God have had to prevent Peter from the surgery or from dying or would have had to heal Peter's tongue or resurrect Peter if he had succeeded?

If yes, then why did God let the people of Nineveh repent and why did God let David leave the city of Keilah, but He did NOT let Peter refuse to go to the trial?

TROUT:
And there you see one of the differences between asking questions, preaching repentance, and predictive prophecy. Jesus knew what Peter would do, he made that clear when He corrected Peter's prediction of the future.

But apparently, Joseph Smith wasn't speaking for God, since his predictive prophesies didn't come to pass.

[John Powell]

TROUT:
And, Jonah was issuing a call to repentance. And, David was asking a question.

JOHN MORMON:
Where did Jonah tell the people of Nineveh to repent?

It's possible for the answer to a question to be a prophecy, Trout, don't you agree? So, just because David was asking a question does not necessarily mean that what God answered was NOT a prophecy. Words in future tense are usually predictions of the future. They generally represent what the person THINKS and EXPECTS will happen. If God THINKS that Saul will come down and says so then that constitutes a prophecy, no?

If you were to ask God, "When will I die, Lord?" and He were to reply with "When you reach the age of 85." Should you consider that a prophecy of when you will die that will happen no ifs, ands, or buts, or a prediction that's contingent on what you and others do or an answer to your question that is NOT a prediction or prophecy or what?

TROUT:
Yes it's possible, and it has occured that in fact the answers to questions have been predective prophecies. But the David passage isn't one of them. God knew that Saul and his men would deliver David up, He made that clear when answering David's question, and had David stayed there he would have been delivered up. Funny, supposedly the same God didn't know that Joseph Smith wouldn't live to be 85.

Jonah was sent to Nineveh to preach (Jonah 3:2), and preach he did, his call to repentance went like this, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown". Now you may not think that statement to be a call to repentance but everyone in Nineveh did, from the king on down.


So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.


TROUT:
Again, God's wrath was averted, there is a pattern He wants us to understand, repentance forgiveness, repentance forgiveness.


JOHN MORMON:
When Nathan said that the first child of David by Bathsheba would surely die (2 Sam 12:14) was that a prediction of what will happen, no ifs, ands, or buts, or a contingent prophecy? If it wasn't a contingent prophecy why did David think he could save the child's life by repenting?

2 Sam 12:22:
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?


JOHN MORMON:
If David, one of the greatest prophets, can't tell the difference between a contingent and a noncontingent prophecy what makes you so capable, Trout?

Why don't you answer David's question, Trout? Who can tell whether God will be gracious and reverse what He said will happen? You?

Maybe David just didn't repent enough.

Jeremiah explained the implied contingency.

Jer. 18: 8, 10
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

. . .

10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.


JOHN MORMON:
So, if God says "Punishment X will happen to you," He does NOT have to add "if you don't repent." It's a given.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, maybe she will exist in the future.

TROUT:
The prophesy certainly implies that she will from that point forward be in existence.


JOHN MORMON:
Where do you see that clearly implied?

According to v. 18 the promises are conditional.

D&C 97:18-21:
18 And, now, behold, if Zion do these things she shall prosper, and spread herself and become very glorious, very great, and very terrible.

19 And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say: Surely Zion is the city of our God, and surely Zion cannot fall, neither be moved out of her place, for God is there, and the hand of the Lord is there;

20 And he hath sworn by the power of his might to be her salvation and her high tower.

21 Therefore, verily, thus saith the Lord, let Zion rejoice, for this is Zion—THE PURE IN HEART; therefore, let Zion rejoice, while all the wicked shall mourn.


JOHN MORMON:
Here's what you originally claimed:

TROUT:
* Zion (Independence, Mo.) can not fall (D&C 97:19)
Mormons driven out.


JOHN MORMON:
Since you think the expulsion from Independence, MO caused D&C 97 to be a failed prophecy, why don't you consider the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple to cause the following to be a similarly failed prophecy?

Isa. 33: 20
20 Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken.


POWELL:
Understanding what "Zion" means will help explain why neither D&C 97 nor Isa 33 was really a failed prophecy.

JOHN MORMON:
If the King issues a decree, Trout, is that an order, a commandment to his subjects, or a prediction of what he expects will happen or what?

TROUT:
When God commands, "You shall not murder", that is a call to a certain kind of behavior. When God, by divine fiat proclaims, "Heaven and earth will pass away" that divine decree will come to pass, apart from my behavior.


JOHN MORMON:
You don't seem to believe that God has free will.

JOHN MORMON:
Remember that GA's tend to focus on the BASICS. They tend to avoid the mysteries, so it's not as easy as you suggest.

TROUT:
Maybe my standard is too high, can you cite any LDS authors who can butress your claim that God doesn't have a thourough [sic] knowledge of the future, and that prophecy is contingent upon the free will man has? Or are you flying solo, beyond the pale of church orthodoxy?


JOHN MORMON:
Well, it's clearly taught by them that God "foreordains," but does NOT "predestinate." In other words, God calls people in the preexistence to certain roles on Earth, but it's up to them to fulfill those roles. This would be a contingent prophecy. It IMPLIES God does not know what they'll do.

The following is an answer by a non-GA to a question about predestination, which is what foreknowledge would entail, but it's based on authoritative statements.

go to www.lds.org
click: Gospel Library
click: Church Publications HTML (Text)
click: + in front of "Magazines"
click: + in front of "Ensign"
click: + in front of "1990"
click: + in front of "Ensign December 1990"
click: "I have a question" (not on the plus)

Eldon R. Taylor, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Dec. 1990, 29
I Have a Question
Questions of general interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy

Romans 8:29-30 seems to indicate that Paul believed in predestination. Did he?

Eldon R. Taylor, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Dec. 1990, 29
Eldon R. Taylor, retired administrative assistant, Church Educational System; and Gospel Essentials teacher, Mapleton Third Ward, Mapleton Utah Stake.

TAYLOR:
. . .
To Latter-day Saints, the idea of predestination is unscriptural. Not only does it deny what Paul and other prophets taught about agency, but it also limits God’s love to only a select few. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith stated emphatically that “no person is ever predestined to salvation or damnation. Every person has free agency.” 3 Similarly, the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob taught that “one being is as precious in [God’s] sight as the other.” (Jacob 2:21.)

The problem with the idea of predestination, as C. H. Dodd put it, is that it “sets the ground of a man’s hope of salvation entirely outside himself.” 4 Elder James E. Talmage also denounced the concept of predestination, saying that it makes us merely “automatons,” 5 acting out a predetermined destiny decreed by God.

The problem is one of definition and interpretation. Many Christian churches regard the words predestine and foreordain as synonymous. 6 However, our modern-day Church leaders have distinguished between them. Predestination is not a part of Latter-day Saint doctrine; foreordination is.

The Prophet Joseph Smith clearly taught that individuals were foreordained in premortality to certain missions in mortality. “Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council in Heaven before this world was,” 7 he wrote.

Several scriptures refer to foreordination; they tell us that Abraham was “chosen” before he was born (Abr. 3:23) and that Jeremiah was “ordained … a prophet unto the nations” before his birth. (Jer. 1:5.) The Book of Mormon says that others were also “called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works.” (Alma 13:3.)


JOHN MORMON:
God had SUFFICIENT knowledge to know what they would likely do, but NOT sufficient foreknowledge to know what they would end up doing.

TAYLOR:
Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote that “the Lord foreordained chosen spirit children in pre-existence and assigned them to come to earth at particular times and places so that they might aid in furthering his divine will. These pre-existence appointments, made ‘according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’ (1 Pet. 1:2), simply designated certain individuals to perform missions which the Lord in his wisdom knew they had the talent and capacities to do.” 8

Foreordination is thus different from predestination. There is no divine compulsion to ensure that a person who is foreordained to a particular calling will fulfill his or her tasks.


JOHN MORMON:
For God to KNOW what you will do would logically compel it to be the case.

Mormons believe that Patriarchal blessings are contingent predictions of the future. Elder Allred is a GA, one of the seventy.

Richard D. Allred, “The Lord Blesses His Children through Patriarchal Blessings,” Ensign, Nov. 1997, 27

The Lord Blesses His Children through Patriarchal Blessings
Elder Richard D. Allred
Of the Seventy

. . .

Patriarchs are charged with the duty of blessing the members of the Church. “Patriarchal blessings contemplate an inspired declaration of the lineage of the recipient. A patriarchal blessing also includes an inspired and prophetic statement of the life possibilities and mission of the recipient. It may include such blessings, promises, advice, admonitions, and warnings as the patriarch may be prompted to give. It should always be made clear that the realization of all promised blessings is conditioned upon faithfulness and the Lord’s will” (Information and Suggestions for Patriarchs [1970], 3-4).


JOHN MORMON:
In other words all Patriacharchal Blessings are CONTINGENT on the will of God and the faithfulness of the recipient.

For God and us to have free will then God CANNOT absolutely know the future. It's logic. If some of the GA's don't understand this that's their problem. God can explain it to them when they're ready.

It's like the "with God nothing shall be impossible" claim in the Bible. Whether Gabriel understands the illogic of his statement is not my problem. Logic demands that he be technically wrong. I assume Gabriel realizes this. Even if God said those words, God would be wrong. God is not above logic. Don't you agree?

JOHN MORMON:
I concede that David asked a question, but you won't concede that when God answers the question with "X will happen," that reply constitutes a prophecy of what will happen.

TROUT:
The answer to David's question wasn't a divine decree, David was asking for advice, God answered him.


JOHN MORMON:
No, Trout. David was NOT asking, "SHOULD I stay in Keilah?" He was merely asking God what WILL happen so that David could decide what to do about it. Elsewhere David did ask for advice.

1 Sam. 23: 2
2 Therefore David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the LORD said unto David, Go, and smite the Philistines, and save Keilah.


JOHN MORMON:
Straw man. I did not say "only." If I meant it I would have said it.

I don't KNOW for sure, but I'm pretty confident that the author did not imply that it's the word of God.

What is said in the LoTR that would justify claiming such an implication?

TROUT:
John Mormon, just pray about it, don't worry about what it says, it's implied in there somewhere, come on, stop playing around and pray about it. You know the only way to know truth is by prayer. Why do you suddenly want to analyze the LoTR text?


JOHN MORMON:
I did NOT say that the ONLY way to know truth is by prayer, Trout. Another straw man.

Who believes that LoTR is scripture that I would have good reason to think it might be? Do YOU believe it? If you don't then why are you encouraging me to bother God with this silly question?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, but what reason would YOU have to believe He held an important station in the universe if the Bible were false? If you were to cease to accept the Bible as true wouldn't you likely also cease to consider Jesus as God?

TROUT:
According to the Matthew, God the Father revealed Christ to me, in much the same way Peter found out.


JOHN MORMON:
If the Bible were false, as it is in this hypothetical, then what evidence would cause you to think that Peter had the truth revealed to him in that way?

TROUT:
John Mormon, do you carry a cross everywhere you go?

JOHN MORMON:
No, but I recognize OTHER methods to determine what I should do concerning statements in the Bible than merely doing whatever is said. I recognize personal revelation from God. You, however, are rejecting that, so why don't YOU give everything you own to the poor and why don't YOU carry a cross wherever you go? Where does the Bible indicate that you don't need to do that?

The answer is right in front of you, Trout, but you won't admit to it. What you do is look at what OTHER CHRISTIANS do and assume they are justified by God in NOT giving everything they own to the poor and in NOT carrying a cross everywhere they go.

TROUT:
I haven't said that I don't recognize personal revelation, in fact that's how I came to know Christ. And I'm glad you don't take everything in the Bible literally, neither do I.


JOHN MORMON:
GOOD!!

Moroni's challenge is merely a formula to obtain personal revelation. You have no good reason to deny its efficacy since you believe in personal revelation, unless you contest some of the specifics of the formula.

TROUT:
The Christian is supposed to give everything he/she owns to God, let Him have stewardship of our assets and some Christians will be asked to give all to the poor, some won't.


JOHN MORMON:
Ok, so because Jesus did not ask EVERYONE to give everything to the poor, you assume that it does not apply to everyone. It only applies to those who God specifically points out, those who feel inspired to do so. Maybe that will work.

Why can't that principle be applied to ANY teaching that does not specifically include EVERYONE? Why can't Christians choose to live those principles they feel inspired to live and neglect those that they don't feel inspired to live?

JOHN MORMON:
Why not, Trout? They were spoken in the future tense, so what makes them signficantly different from other words spoken by God in the future tense?

TROUT:
Jonah issued a call to repentance, and David asked for advice.


JOHN MORMON:
David was not asking for advice. He wanted to know what WILL happen (if he stayed) so he could decide what to do.

From God's point of view Jonah was making an implied call to repentence, but Jonah didn't seem to understand it too well or really hoped to see a good display of God's wrath. It's not an EXPLICIT call to repentence. The prediction was contingent on the repentence of the people.

JOHN MORMON:
You're betraying statistical ignorance. If you are 60% reliable in your predictions then you will be right more often than wrong. That's useful.

TROUT:
Useful for some things, but not for everything, you wouldn't want to risk your life on a 60% chance.


JOHN MORMON:
It depends. If my life is in jeopardy and one choice is 60% reliable and the other is only 40% I will choose the 60% one. However, if my life is NOT in jeopardy then I would not risk it on a 60% chance unless the reward was sufficiently high or the consequences to those I love were sufficiently serious.

TROUT:
Had he fled, he might have been swallowed by a great fish, brought back, and made to face his fate.

JOHN MORMON:
GOOD!

What if Peter had tried to commit suicide or cut off his tongue in an attempt to avoid his fate? Would God have had to prevent Peter from the surgery or from dying or would have had to heal Peter's tongue or resurrect Peter if he had succeeded?

If yes, then why did God let the people of Nineveh repent and why did God let David leave the city of Keilah, but He did NOT let Peter refuse to go to the trial?

TROUT:
And there you see one of the differences between asking questions, preaching repentance, and predictive prophecy. Jesus knew what Peter would do, he made that clear when He corrected Peter's prediction of the future.


JOHN MORMON:
You did not answer the questions. Would you try again?

What if Peter had tried to commit suicide or cut off his tongue in an attempt to avoid his fate? Would God have had to prevent Peter from the surgery or from dying or would have had to heal Peter's tongue or resurrect Peter if he had succeeded?

If yes, then why did God let the people of Nineveh repent and why did God let David leave the city of Keilah, but He did NOT let Peter refuse to go to the trial?

TROUT:
But apparently, Joseph Smith wasn't speaking for God, since his predictive prophesies didn't come to pass.


JOHN MORMON:
So what if they didn't all come to pass as stated? Not all of the predictive prophecies in the Bible came to pass "as stated" either. The "Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days" did not come to pass "as stated." The "Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will turn you in" didn't either.

Nor did the "Nebuchadnezzar will destroy Tyre" prediction in Ezek 26.

If all of Joseph's prophecies had come to pass "as stated" and he gave sufficiently detailed ones then pretty much everyone on Earth would be a Mormon. That would not be a fair test of our character. You must demonstrate more faith than that to deserve celestial glory.

On the other hand, a lot of Joseph's prophecies did come to pass as stated. The "Civil war will begin in South Carolina" one was fulfilled. The "Word of Wisdom" one also. The "saints in the mountains of the west" also. The phenomenal growth of the church. Those are a few I remember.

In a sense, all God's prophecies are fulfilled since they are all contingent, but you need to realize there are implied contingencies even if they aren't explicitly given.

John Powell

[Trout]

To John Mormon

You have posited the notion that all predictive prophecy is contingent upon man and God's free will, so predictive prophecy is only a highly educated guess. You however cannot cite an LDS authority who can verify your conclusion. The citations you have, speak only about predestiantion, they don't make the jump into prophecy.

To further buttress your point you've been trying to demonstrate from the OT why your point is valid, I have shown that the passages you have quoted weren't predective prophecy. (You have disagreed with my conclusions) So, would you agree that Joseph Smith issued prophecies that didn't come to pass?

[John Powell]

TROUT:
To John Mormon

You have posited the notion that all predictive prophecy is contingent upon man and God's free will, so predictive prophecy is only a highly educated guess.


JOHN MORMON:
That seems correct to me. If divine prophecies are what will happen, no ifs, ands, or buts, then God does not have free will.

TROUT:
You however cannot cite an LDS authority who can verify your conclusion.


JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, you think I haven't yet. Whether I can or not is another question.

TROUT:
The citations you have, speak only about predestiantion, they don't make the jump into prophecy.


POWELL:
The Patriarchal Blessing is a prophecy just like the blessings the ancient Patriarchs gave to their children were prophecies.

Predestination is to say a person's destination (hell or heaven) is predetermined before they're born. Mormons don't believe that. If God were to know that J is predestined to heaven then God would not be able to change that even if J were to become the most wicked person ever. God is unable to change what is impossible to change.

TROUT:
To further buttress your point you've been trying to demonstrate from the OT why your point is valid, I have shown that the passages you have quoted weren't predective prophecy.


JOHN MORMON:
You still have not explained well enough how to tell the difference. When God says "X will happen" you think sometimes it will happen no ifs, ands, or buts (e.g., Peter denying), but other times it's not what will certainly happen (e.g., Nineveh, David and Keilah).

How can you tell before that future time arrives which kind it is?

TROUT:
(You have disagreed with my conclusions) So, would you agree that Joseph Smith issued prophecies that didn't come to pass?


JOHN MORMON:
Sort of. Basically to the same extent that there are prophecies in the Bible that didn't come to pass. Some of them didn't come to pass AS STATED. There is always a contingency. God has free will. God can change His mind.

Do you agree that there are Biblical prophecies that didn't come to pass AS STATED?

Jonah told the cith of Nineveh that they would be destroyed in 40 days. Were they? No. They repented. God forgave them.

God told David that the men of Keilah would turn him in and that Saul would come down. Did either of these happen? No. David left.

Jesus told Peter that he would deny Jesus three times before the cock crowed the second time. Did this happen? Yes. However, Peter could have avoided it, especially after denying the first time and hearing the cock crow the first time.

John Powell

[AntonS]

Joseph Smith was God's, but then God left him. Therefore, his first writings and prophecies can be true, but his last prophecies are not true.

[RussianWolfe]

Joseph Smith was God's, but then God left him. Therefore, his first writings and prophecies can be true, but his last prophecies are not true.

In other words, you believe that God made a mistake. God didn't have the foresight to call a man who could complete the work that he was called to do? I don't believe that.

Marvin

[AntonS]

In other words, you believe that God made a mistake. God didn't have the foresight to call a man who could complete the work that he was called to do? I don't believe that.

MarvinNo, it was not a mistake. Joseph Smith was a good man, but it was not time for great prophets, that is why God left him. Smith was not God's enemy, but like ordinary people made mistakes, after God left him. Why do you think that prophets are always prophets? A man can become a prophet, then become not a prophet, and then again become a prophet. It depends on if God is with the man.

[RussianWolfe]

No, it was not a mistake. Joseph Smith was a good man, but it was not time for great prophets, that is why God left him. Smith was not God's enemy, but like ordinary people made mistakes, after God left him. Why do you think that prophets are always prophets? A man can become a prophet, then become not a prophet, and then again become a prophet. It depends on if God is with the man.

If what you say is true, then God made a mistake. God couldn't choose a man who would be able to do what God wanted him to do all the way to the end. I can't believe in a God who can make this kind of mistake. God didn't leave Jonah, why would he leave Joseph Smith?

Marvin

[Leroy]

If what you say is true, then God made a mistake. God couldn’t choose a man who would be able to do what God wanted him to do all the way to the end. I can’t believe in a God who can make this kind of mistake. God didn’t leave Jonah, why would he leave Joseph Smith?

I agree that God does not make mistakes, and it would be very problematic for an on again off again True prophet of God.
President Joseph Fielding Smith, the 6th president of the church, makes a statement that really gets to the heart of the matter: "Mormonism as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.
With that said, Joseph Smith seems to make the contradictory statement that some of his "revelations" might be of man or even of the devil. So I ask the question, couldn’t God choose a man able to prophecy Truth?
Joseph Smith’s statement seems to contradict the test of a True prophet in Deuteronomy 18:22.

[AntonS]

If what you say is true, then God made a mistake. God couldn't choose a man who would be able to do what God wanted him to do all the way to the end. I can't believe in a God who can make this kind of mistake. God didn't leave Jonah, why would he leave Joseph Smith?

MarvinJoseph Smith did what God wanted him to do until God left him. God left him not because he was not able to do what God wanted him to do, but because God wanted to leave him, maybe, because it was not time for great prophets, because of God's plan.
Though mistakes happen sometimes, but that was not a mistake.

[AntonS]

I agree that God does not make mistakes, and it would be very problematic for an on again off again True prophet of God.
President Joseph Fielding Smith, the 6th president of the church, makes a statement that really gets to the heart of the matter: "Mormonism as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.
With that said, Joseph Smith seems to make the contradictory statement that some of his "revelations" might be of man or even of the devil. So I ask the question, couldn’t God choose a man able to prophecy Truth?
Joseph Smith’s statement seems to contradict the test of a True prophet in Deuteronomy 18:22.He was not an "on again off again True prophet of God". He was a prophet one part of his life, then God left him and he spent another part of his life remembering revelations and God, but being not a prophet, maybe desiring to serve God again and speak with God. Where I say "maybe" - it is my thought, but the rest God told me about him. He was not an enemy of God, but made mistakes after God had left him.

[Leroy]

I agree that God does not make mistakes, and it would be very problematic for an on again off again True prophet of God.
President Joseph Fielding Smith, the 6th president of the church, makes a statement that really gets to the heart of the matter: "Mormonism as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.
With that said, Joseph Smith seems to make the contradictory statement that some of his "revelations" might be of man or even of the devil. So I ask the question, couldn’t God choose a man able to prophecy Truth?
Joseph Smith’s statement seems to contradict the test of a True prophet in Deuteronomy 18:22.

He was not an "on again off again True prophet of God". He was a prophet one part of his life, then God left him…
At what point did God leave him?

and he spent another part of his life remembering revelations and God, but being not a prophet, maybe desiring to serve God again and speak with God.
Did he remain President of the LDS Church?

Where I say "maybe" - it is my thought, but the rest God told me about him.
How did God tell you this and how do you know it was God telling you?

He was not an enemy of God, but made mistakes after God had left him.
What mistakes?

[AntonS]

At what point did God leave him?

Did he remain President of the LDS Church?I don't know.

How did God tell you this and how do you know it was God telling you?I believe that it was God. Now I don't speak with Him (or at least not as when I was a baby and before).

What mistakes?Sometimes he was not right, but I don't know exactly.

[Leroy]

I don't know.

I believe that it was God. Now I don't speak with Him (or at least not as when I was a baby and before).

Sometimes he was not right, but I don't know exactly.


antonS,

Are you relying on the church Joseph Smith restored for your salvation?

[AntonS]

antonS,

Are you relying on the church Joseph Smith restored for your salvation?No, I am not.