Questionable Prophesies by Joseph Smith

[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.

Scripture Verse:

Matthew 26:31

Scripture Verse:

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:

Scripture Verse:

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.

Scripture Verse:

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.

Scripture Verse:

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?

Scripture Verse:

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.

Scripture Verse:

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.

Scripture Verse:

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?

Scripture Verse:

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.

Scripture Verse:

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.

Marvin

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.

[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?

Marvin

Joseph 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?