Posted on 05/21/2008 7:02:35 PM PDT by Grig
Puaaled what H?
Puzzled what H?
The “H” in He, or His when talking about Christ.
You seem to never capitalize the H when referring to Him.
And please, don’t refer to your handicap again. If you can capitalize Church and Prophet, then you certainly can capitalize Him, He, and His.
by Michael T. Griffith
The purpose of this chapter is to show that the anti-Mormon standard for judging Joseph Smith’s prophecies is just as damaging to a number of Bible prophecies, if not more so.
I will not be discussing any of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s alleged “false prophecies;’ for two reasons: (1) He never uttered any false prophecies; and (2) before I will even enter into such a discussion, I first insist on examining some important rules about prophecy itself, and on asking anti-Mormons to justify their attack on Joseph Smith in light of those prophecies in the Bible that plainly and clearly did not come to pass.
In discussing difficult Bible prophecies, it is not my intention to attack the Bible, nor to suggest that any of the biblical prophets were false prophets. Rather, it is to illustrate the fact that anyone who accepts the anti-Mormon standard for concluding that Joseph Smith uttered false prophecies must also conclude that several Bible prophets did the same thing.
It has been my experience that anti-LDS critics are willing to make every possible allowance and exception for difficult Bible prophecies, but none for those of Joseph Smith.
The Anti-Mormon Standard
Typically, anti-Mormons point to Deuteronomy 18:21-22 as their measuring rod for branding as “false” a number of Joseph Smith’s prophecies. Here is how these verses read in the Revised Standard Version (RSV):
And if you say in your heart, “How may we know the word which the
Lord has not spoken?” when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.
Using a strictly literal interpretation of these verses as their guide, most if not all anti-Mormons insist that if a prophecy does not come to pass, it is automatically false, period. These critics don’t seem to realize they are stepping into quicksand when they use this criterion to attack Joseph Smith. The issue of prophecy is extremely complex. It is by no means as simple as a strictly literal understanding of Deuteronomy 18:21-22. The rigid anti-Mormon interpretation of these verses invalidates several Bible prophecies as much as it does some of Joseph Smith’s prophecies. In fact, atheistic critics have used this same sort of approach to attack several prophecies in the Bible.
Rules on Prophecy
However, after studying prophecy for several years, I have deduced certain rules which, when taken into account, enable us to explain the difficult prophecies uttered by certain Bible prophets and by Joseph Smith. I will now list these rules. Most of them are intertwined to varying degrees.
1. Almost all prophecy is conditional to one degree or another, even if this is not stated in the prophecy itself (which is often the case).
2. In many cases human actions and choices can alter, postpone, or prevent the fulfillment of prophecy.
3. A prophecy is not always telling us what will happen, but what could happen under certain circumstances.
4. A prophet can misinterpret the timetable for a prophecy’s fulfillment (this, of course, does not invalidate the prophecy itself).
5. A prophet can be mistaken about certain details of a prophecy but correct with regard to its central message.
6. A prophecy can apply to more than one occurrence or time period, i.e., it can have dual application.
7. A prophecy’s fulfillment can be intended to take place in the spirit world
or during the millennium, even if this is not stated in the prophecy itself.
8. The fulfillment of prophecy can go unobserved and/or unrecorded.
9. A prophecy can contain rhetorical overstatements. For example, a prophecy might read that “every single house” in a certain town will be “leveled to the ground;’ when what is really meant is that the town will suffer heavy destruction.
10. Such terms and expressions as “soon,” “quickly,” “in a little while,” “shortly;’ etc., are often given from the Lord’s perspective of time—so that “soon ;’ for example, might turn out to be a very long time by our reckoning.
11. The text of a prophecy can undergo alteration to the point that it no longer reflects the original intent of the prophecy.
Therefore, just because a prophecy goes partially or totally unfulfilled does not mean it is false. Anyone who would deny this must explain those prophecies in the Bible which did not come to pass.
Difficult Bible Prophecies
Let us now examine three difficult Bible prophecies that would have to be rejected as false if we were to insist on judging them solely on the basis of a strictly literal reading of Deuteronomy 18:21-22.
In 2 Samuel 7: 5-17, we read that the prophet Nathan unequivocally prophesied to David that through his son Solomon the Davidic empire would be established “forever;’ that the children of Israel would dwell in the promised land “and move no more,” and that the “children of wickedness” would no longer afflict them. These things are quite clearly stated. No conditions are attached to these promises, none whatsoever.
That Nathan was predicting the permanent establishment of the temporal kingdom of David has even been acknowledged (albeit somewhat obliquely) by R. K. Harrison, a fine conservative Bible scholar:
The Davidic dynasty was confidently expected to usher in a new era of Israelite life of an enduring quality (2 Sam. 7:5if), because it was firmly rooted in loyalty to the God of the Covenant. (1969:410, emphasis added.)
Robert Jamieson, Andrew Faucet, and David Brown concede that the promise of “the throne of his kingdom” being established “forever” (vs. 13) refers “in its primary application, to Solomon, and to the temporal kingdom of David’s family” (587). The promise is reiterated in verse 16: “thine [David’s] house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever.” In short, as Robert H. Pfeiffer has stated,”.. . the point of II Samuel 7 is the eternity of this [the Davidic] dynasty” (370). It was because of the supposed permanence of the Davidic empire that the children of Israel would be able to remain in the promised land “and move no more” (vs. 10).
And, as for the assurance that the Israelites would no longer be afflicted by “the children of wickedness” (vs. 10), the New International Version phrases it this way: “Wicked people will not oppress them any more.”
But, of course, what actually happened to the Davidic empire and to the children of Israel? The Davidic dynasty was later smashed. The Israelites were driven and scattered from the promised land. And “wicked people” certainly continued to afflict and oppress them.
The second difficult Bible prophecy we will consider is one which is attributed to the Savior Himself. It is found in Matthew 10:23, wherein Jesus is represented as very matter-of-factly stating that His second coming would occur before the disciples returned from the mission on which He was then sending them. This, of course, did not happen. The verse roads as follows in the RSV:
When they persecute you [the disciples] in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say unto you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.
Howard Clark Kee has said the following about this verse:
One of the most problematic sayings in the whole Synoptic tradition [i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke] is this explicit statement that the disciples will not have completed their mission tour before the Son of man comes, i.e., before the age ends and the kingdom of God arrives in its fullness. (In Laymon 622)
Says T. F. Glasson, “Thus, before the disciples return Jesus expects to be caught up to heaven and to come down in glory” (57).
This verse is so problematic that many scholars have questioned its authenticity. Glasson notes that them is “widespread doubt concerning the genuineness of Matthew 10:23.. . .” (59).
The third difficult Bible prophecy we will consider is Judges 13:5, where it is recounted that an angel promised Samson’s mother that Samson would “begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.” No matter how liberal or expansive one wants to be with the facts of Israelite history (as recorded in the Bible or elsewhere), there is no way it can reasonably be concluded that Samson fulfilled this prophecy.
Not only did Samson fail to even “begin” to free Israel from the Philistines, but (1) there were times when he consorted with Philistine women, (2) he married a Philistine, (3) he himself never even led any Israelite troops against the Philistines, and (4) the Philistines eventually humiliated him.
Moreover, and most importantly, Israel actually lost ground to the Philistines during Samson’s tenure. Judges 13-16 illustrates Philistine encroachment into Hebrew territory. The Samson narrative documents the eastward expansion of the Philistines by mentioning the Philistine presence in Timnah and Lehi, both in the strategic valley of Sorek (Achtemeier 1985:787-791). This Philistine expansion worsened the land shortage that eventually forced the Danites to migrate northward.
Of course, the non-fulfillment of Judges 13: 5 can be attributed to Samson’s failure to live according to his Nazarite calling. In addition to his sexual liaisons, he married a Philistine, ate unclean food, drank wine, and allowed his hair to be cut. Therefore, it could be said that the angel’s prophecy was nullified by Samson’s behavior. However, the angel placed absolutely no conditions on his promise that Samson would begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. He simply declared that Samson would do so.
Conclusion
The three Bible prophecies discussed above are certainly “difficult” to put it mildly. However, they can be explained, if one is willing to accept the rules on prophecy presented herein.
The exact same thing can be said about Joseph Smith’s alleged “false prophecies.” Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and he never uttered a single false prophecy.
A Ready Reply, p. 22-26
Copyright by Horizon
by Jeff Lindsay
If any prophecy of a so-called prophet proves to be wrong, shouldn’t we reject him? Isn’t that the standard of Deut. 18:22?
Deut. 18:22 reads:
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
This doesn’t exactly say that one mistake makes a false prophet. James L. Mays, editor of Harper’s Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988, p. 226), writes:
Prophecy in the names of other gods is easily rejected, but false prophecy in God’s name is a more serious matter. This dilemma requires the application of a pragmatic criterion that, although clearly useless for judgments on individual oracles, is certainly a way to evaluate a prophet’s overall performance.
The problem with applying Deut. 18:22 to a single, individual prophecy is that some prophecies can be fulfilled in complex ways or at times much later than anticipated by the hearers. Moreover, God sometimes appears to reverse certain prophecies, as He says He is free to do in Jeremiah 18:7-10:
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
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.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
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.
Be careful in how you apply Deut. 18:22, for you threaten to reject some true prophets in the Bible! There are examples where a true prophet prophesied something which did not happen as he stated, to the best of our knowledge. An example is found in the story of Jonah, who was told by God to prophecy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah prophesied that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4) - no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. God changed things, however, when the people repented and He chose to spare them - much to the chagrin of that imperfect (yet still divinely called) prophet, Jonah. Jonah, in fact, was “displeased ... exceedingly” and “very angry” (Jonah 4:1) about this change from God, perhaps because it made Jonah look bad. In spite of an “incorrect” prophecy and in spite of the obvious shortcomings of Jonah, he was a prophet of God and the Book of Jonah in the Bible is part of the Word of God. Yet if that sacred text had been lost, only to be restored by Joseph Smith, perhaps as part of the Book of Mormon, it would be assaulted as the most damning evidence against Joseph Smith. Just imagine how the critics would dismiss the Book of Jonah as being evil, contradictory, ludicrous, anti-Biblical, unscientific, and unchristian (of course, there are plenty already who reject it as it is, unable to believe major parts of the story).
The prophet Ezekiel provides another example of how true prophets may err or give prophecies of uncertain accuracy. In Ezekiel chapters 26, 27, and 28, we read that Tyre (a fortified island city) would be conquered, destroyed, and plundered by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The riches of Tyre would go to Babylon (Ezek. 26:12). Nebuchadnezzar’s army did lay siege to Tyre, and its inhabitants were afflicted, apparently so much that they shaved their heads bald, as prophesied in Ezek. 27:31. However, the 13-year Babylonian siege apparently was not quite as successful as Ezekiel had predicted, perhaps because the land-based tactics of Babylonian sieges were less effective against a fortified island city with significant maritime power. The result of the siege may have been a compromise or treaty rather than total destruction and plunder, for Ezekiel 29:17-20 reports that the predicted plundering did not take place. Almost as if in compensation, the Lord now announces that He will give Egypt to the Babylonians, which is the theme of chapter 29. Here are verses 17-20:
17 And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.
Yes, Tyre is no more, but its complete destruction apparently did not occur during the Babylonian siege, and certainly the Babylonian army did not get the riches of Tyre as has been prophesied. It is Ezekiel himself who reports this “prophetic failure.” (The analysis above is derived from an article by Daniel C. Peterson in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1995, pp. 49-50.) My purpose in raising this issue is not to question the wisdom of the Lord nor the truthfulness of the Bible, but to point out that an overly critical attitude and a strict application of Deut. 18:22 may reject even true, Biblical prophets. If we try hard enough to find reasons to reject a prophet, we will surely succeed - but beware lest we judge unwisely and reject those whom God has sent and anointed, even though they be mortal and fallible.
Another example to consider is the prophet Jeremiah - a great and inspired prophet - who prophesied that king Zedekiah would “die in peace” (Jer. 34:4-5). Critics could argue that this prophecy did not prove to be true, for Zedekiah saw his sons killed by the conquering Babylonians and was himself blinded and put in prison, where he died in captivity - not in peace (Jer. 52:10-11). Of course, the point is that he would not be killed by the sword, but die of natural causes - albeit in prison - yet to the critics, it may look like a case of a false prophecy. This case is certainly less clear-cut than the prophecy of Ezekiel discussed above, yet also serves to warn us against harsh judgments.
Many LDS critics attempt to condemn Joseph Smith using a standard that would, if applied to Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Jonah, also condemn the Old Testament as a fraud.
Joseph Smith made some amazingly correct prophecies: predicting in 1832 that a civil war would erupt, beginning in South Carolina, with Great Britain to be involved; prophesying that tobacco is harmful to human health and giving a dietary code with nutritional principles much like the modern “food pyramid;” predicting his own martyrdom; prophesying of the global success that the restored Church would experience, with persecutions; predicting that the Saints would become established in the Rockies; and predicting other important events relative to Native Americans, the United States of America, the Church, future calamities, many details related to specific individuals, etc. Several of these fulfilled prophecies are discussed in detail on my LDSFAQ page, prophecies that have been fulfilled. The prophetic nature of the Book of Mormon is also noteworthy. Even mundane passages such as the physical description of Nephi’s journey through the Arabian peninsula serve as validated prophecies, in a sense, for none of the many accurate details in the text could have been fabricated in 1830 based on what was then known about Arabia, and the “direct hits” (e.g., the place Bountiful and the burial site named Nahom) serve as evidences vindicating Joseph Smith as a prophet. (This section is under construction.)
The specific prophecies that are said to be false or incorrect by critics are typically based on hearsay or unreliable sources or are based on incorrect interpretations of what is said. There is no reliable evidence to say that Joseph Smith fails any sound test based on Deut. 18:22.
There is one common argument based on an official source from Joseph Smith. Many critics use Doctrine and Covenants 84:2-5 to say that Joseph was a false prophet. This section about the last days predicts that a temple would be built in Missouri “in this generation” - and has not yet been fulfilled. The critics almost always overlook the related revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 124:49-51, in which the Lord explains why the task is on hold and not required of his servants at the moment. The critics also overlook Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32, where Christ makes prophecies that are still not fulfilled which involved “this generation” - very similar to the wording that critics condemn in Doctrine and Covenants 84:2-5. The standard used to make a false prophet out of Joseph Smith would also reject Jesus Christ. My advice: be careful about whom you condemn and how you reject possible messengers of God.
For further reading on this topic, Michael T. Griffith has a useful article, Vindicating Prophecy: Why the Anti-Mormon View of Prophecy Is Invalid, which deals with false standards applied by anti-Mormons to LDS prophecy and prophets - standards which would invalidate the Bible as well. That article is part of his book One Lord, One Faith (Horizon Publishers, 1996).Below is a portion of that article (quoted here since the Web link may have quit working):
In 2 Samuel 7:5-17, we read that the prophet Nathan unequivocally prophesied to David that through his son Solomon the Davidic empire would be established “forever,” that the children of Israel would dwell in the promised land “and move no more,” and that the “children of wickedness” would no longer afflict them. These things are quite clearly stated. No conditions are attached to these promises, none whatsoever. [Yet this prophecy clearly did not prove successful if it is interpreted literally.]...
[Another example of a problematic Biblical prophecy is] Judges 13:5, where it is recounted that an angel promised Samson’s mother that Samson would “begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.” No matter how liberal or expansive one wants to be with the facts of Israelite history (as recorded in the Bible or elsewhere), there is no way it can reasonably be concluded that Samson fulfilled this prophecy.
Not only did Samson fail to even “begin” to free Israel from the Philistines, but (1) there were times when he consorted with Philistine women, (2) he married a Philistine, (3) he himself never even led any Israelite troops against the Philistines, and (4) the Philistines eventually humiliated him.
Moreover, and most importantly, Israel actually lost ground to the Philistines during Samson’s tenure. Judges 13-16 illustrates Philistine encroachment into Hebrew territory. The Samson narrative documents the eastward expansion of the Philistines by mentioning the Philistine presence in Timnah and Lehi, both in the strategic valley of Sorek (Achtemeier 1985:787-791). This Philistine expansion worsened the land shortage that eventually forced the Danites to migrate northward.
Of course, the nonfulfillment of Judges 13:5 can be attributed to Samson’s failure to live according to his Nazarite calling. In addition to his sexual liaisons, he married a Philistine, ate unclean food, drank wine, and allowed his hair to be cut. Therefore, it could be said that the angel’s prophecy was nullified by Samson’s behavior. However, the angel placed absolutely no conditions on his promise that Samson would begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. He simply declared that Samson would do so.
How can a sinner be a prophet of God?
Joseph Smith was a fallible mortal, yet was a noble and just man who was nevertheless slandered by his enemies (including some who became hateful after being excommunicated for adultery). He was great, but not perfect.
The Bible clearly teaches that true prophets of God are nevertheless imperfect. The Apostle Paul, for example, wrote of his weakness and admitted that he still struggled with sin (Romans 7:18-20). Moses, one of the greatest prophets of all, also was not without weakness and sin. A sin committed apparently in pride and disbelief kept him from being allowed to enter the promised land - as a punishment from God. (See Numbers 20:10-12. Moses did not accurately follow the instructions of the Lord in performing a miracle and seems to have presumptuously taken credit for it.) Not every act of Moses was perfect, nor was his reputation flawless. In fact, his detractors could point out that he began as a “killer,” for he killed an Egyptian, although it was in the process of defending someone else who was being attacked. His brother, Aaron, called of God to serve as a mouthpiece for Moses, also sinned terribly in making a golden calf. He repented, but he did sin.
Jonah, again, is an example of an imperfect prophet, who yet was called of God and divinely inspired. David spoke and wrote scripture, yet later committed awful sins - including adultery and murder. Solomon also was guilty of ugly deeds. In the New Testament, we find contention between Paul and Barnabas and between Paul and Peter. Paul also seemed to suffer from the problem of prejudice, for his opinion of people from Crete, given in Titus 1:12-13, seems a little less than open-minded:
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
This witness is true.
Cretians are always liars? Maybe so, but it seems a little unfair (not to mention politically incorrect).
And among the Apostles of Christ, there was petty contention about who should be the greatest among them. They weren’t perfect. They were called, chosen, anointed, and given power from God - but they made foolish mistakes at times. Even the great Peter had to weep bitterly when he realized what he had done in denying Christ three times. (Think of what fun anti-Mormons would have if Joseph Smith had denied Christ even once after his call to be a prophet.) Peter repented, and later became an immovable witness for Christ, but he was guilty of sin and failure after being ordained an Apostle. Human servants are still human and fallible - but as servants of God, they can act as true prophets and teach truth, prophesy about great things, and lead us to Christ. But we worship God, not his mortal servants. Nevertheless, we will be held accountable for how we receive the authorized servants that Christ sends to us. Be careful about condemning them for their mortal faults and sins.
see All About Mormons
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/false_prophesies.htm
Are two heads better than one!:)
Thanks for the grammar update
Many have a hard time with this but when Jesus had important things to say to his disciples he took them to higher retreat to impart his words.
He did not include the scribes and pharasees etc these are not his followers!
It should read:
Many have a hard time with this but when Jesus had important things to say to His disciples He took them to higher retreat to impart His words.
He did not include the scribes and pharasees etc these are not His followers!
At one time, it was widely taught that pronouns referring to the Godhead are to be capitalized according to the grammatical rules of English. Many of us were raised with this, and it was in the English curriculum that we used when we homeschooled the kids in grade school. Many people now consider it a matter of preference but at one time it was considered a great matter of respect towards God.
More long-winded mormon apologetics. Did someone tell you guys that these diatribes are gaining you friends and converts? LOL!
Perhaps the matter of giving respect is diluted when there is a belief in millions of gods.
Well I am a late comer I have improved my written skills but never learn the ins and outs of grammar this is my next project I am self taught.
I had to battle dyslexia all my life but I keep trying to im prove!
They never knew about this when I was going to school.
More long-winded mormon apologetics
and your post wasn’t from Abanes
Ah, you mentioned it.....
BTW, you aren’t the only Mormon on this thread who seems to not understand that He, Him and His should be capitalized when speaking of our Lord, it is only respectful IMHO.
If you couldn't tell, it was a summary of quotes from various sources. You are free to go to the sources for verification.
I don't feel the need to post thousands of words when a short excerpt will furnish the appropriate information.
Can I send you a FReepmail about curriculum we used for English grammar homeschooling?
I would appreciate it.
Thank You!
At one time, it was widely taught that pronouns referring to the Godhead are to be capitalized according to the grammatical rules of English. Many of us were raised with this, and it was in the English curriculum that we used when we homeschooled the kids in grade school. Many people now consider it a matter of preference but at one time it was considered a great matter of respect towards God.
________________________________________________
Thank you...
I was taught this too...
Respect for God...
At one time, it was widely taught that pronouns referring to the Godhead are to be capitalized according to the grammatical rules of English. Many of us were raised with this, and it was in the English curriculum that we used when we homeschooled the kids in grade school. Many people now consider it a matter of preference but at one time it was considered a great matter of respect towards God.
________________________________________________
Incidently, I went to school with Presbyterians, Methodists, Roman Catholics, etc
And they also capitalized the words, He, His, etc for God, Jesus, etc...
Seems we all learnt to do so in church, as well as school...
And they also capitalized the words, He, His, etc for God, Jesus, etc...
That's right. It was that way when I was growing up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.