One of the most common objections from critics of our faith pertains to allegedly false prophecies of Joseph Smith. Some of these are based on statements reported from unofficial or unreliable sources, where we can’t really be sure what was said. Others are based on a misunderstanding of what was meant or of what actually happened. Others are based on failure to recognize the timeframe of the prophecy – a prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled is not necessarily a false prophecy. Further errors still are made by confusing personal opinions with prophecy or commandments with prophecy. An excellent article on these issues is “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy” by John Tvedtnes, one of my favorite LDS scholars. I also have an LDSFAQ page, “Mormon Answers: Questions about LDS Prophets” that deals with many so-called false prophecies of Joseph Smith.
And let’s not forget the many fulfilled and accurate prophecies of Joseph Smith, a true modern prophet of Jesus Christ. For even more examples of prophetic accuracy, I suggest you read the pages of the Book of Mormon, where ancient prophetic editing aimed at our day has given us a text with incredible relevance to this century, filled with prophecies of our day that we can see unfolding before our eyes. It is a marvelous tribute to the prophetic call of Joseph Smith.
24 thoughts on “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy”
First of all, let’s specify the Biblical text. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 which reads as follows:
And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 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.
That being said, all it takes is ONE false prophecy to prove a so-called prophet false. Joseph Smith said the folliwng (sourced):
These are taken from official Mormon sources — either the Latter-day Saint scriptures or the History of the Church (HC), a seven volume history published under the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). Each are given in context and cited directly from the original source.
Prophecy # 1 — The Coming of the Lord
President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. . . . it was the will of God that they should be ordained to the ministry and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh — even fifty six years should wind up the scene. (History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 182).
This prophecy was spoken by Joseph Smith in 1835, and recorded by Oliver Cowdery. The fifty-six years were passed by 1891.
Prophecy # 2 — David W. Patten to go on a mission
Verily, thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto the world. (Doctrine & Covenants 114:1)
This prophecy was made on April 17, 1838. David W. Patten died in October of 1838 and thus never went on a mission the following spring.
Prophecy # 3 — The United States Government
to be overthrown in a few years
I prophecy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished (History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 394).
Joseph Smith made this prophecy in May 6, 1843. However, the United States Government did not redress any of the wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri, and now over 150 years later, the U.S. Government still stands.
Prophecy # 4 — Congress to be broken up as a government
While discussing the petition to Congress, I prophesied, by virtue of the holy Priesthood vested in me, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government, and God shall damn them, and there shall be nothing left of them — not even a grease spot. (Millennial Star, Vol. 22, p. 455. See also History of the Church (HC), vol. 6, p. 116, though when this prediction was incorporated into the official history, Mormon Church leaders decided to leave out the “grease spot” part.)
The petition was not heard nor was protection granted (Deseret News, Vol. 1, p. 59). Yet, Congress was never broken up and continues to function to this day. It is interesting that the compilers of History of the Church, added an editorial note in an attempt to soften or explain this prophecy. They state that: “This prediction doubtless has reference to the party in power; to the ‘government’ considered as the administration;” (note, p. 116). According to the note in HC, this means the Democratic Party, which was in control at the time. However, the prediction is that “Congress shall be broken up as a government” and Congress is made up of representatives from both parties. The Saints were making an appeal to the General Government, not to the Democratic Party, a point made by a summary statement in the left margin beside this prophecy as it is recorded in HC.
Prophecy #5 —Finding Treasure in Salem, Massachusetts
This prophecy is recorded in Doctrine & Covenants Section 111. The introduction to this prophecy, found at the beginning of Section 111 states:
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Salem, Massachusetts, August 6, 1836. HC 2:465-466. At this time the leaders of the [LDS] Church were heavily in debt due to their labors in the ministry.
1. I, the Lord your God, am not displeased with your coming this journey, notwithstanding your follies.
2. I have much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion, and many people in this city, whom I will gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion, through your instrumentality.
3. Therefore, it is expedient that you should form acquaintance with men in this city, as you shall be led, and as it shall be given you.
4. And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours.
5. Concern not yourselves about your debts, for I will give you power to pay them.
No treasure was ever discovered, nor did Salem ever fell into the hands of the Mormons.
Prophecy #6 — Pestilence, Hail, Famine & Earthquake
to Destroy the Wicked
And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. The people of the Lord, those who have complied with the requirements of the new covenant, have already commenced gathering together to Zion, which is in the state of Missouri; therefore I declare unto you the warning which the Lord has commanded to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes of my Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable for every word I say, wishing nothing worse to my fellow-men than their eternal salvation; therefore, “Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come.” Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant and flee to Zion, before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled (History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 315-316).
Such a widespread destruction of the wicked of that generation never occurred.
Prophecy # 7 — Temple to be Built in Zion, Missouri
This prophecy comes directly from Doctrine & Covenants Section 84, the introduction of which states:
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, September 22 and 23, 1832. HC 1:286-295.
1. A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high.
2. Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
The Mormons were forced to flee Missouri due to persecution and a temple was never built on the “temple lot” in the lifetime of Joseph Smith or within the generation of his contemporaries.
Finally, the prophecy of his son succeeding him to become “president and king of Israel.” Michael D. Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy.
Just a couple of thoughts regarding prophecy and the like.
My first thought is probably quite apologetic. When I think of the Bible as a 1800 + year old document, my first thought is back to the council of Nicea. If I were to assemble a text of cannon material I would be sure to leave out anything said that was not to support my positions.
Likewise, when Old Testiment prophets spoke, do you think that their scribes kept anything that did not come true.
Others have already shown prophecies that did not come true in Old Testiment times.
By that same token the LDS church is new enough, and because of the availability of literacy many people have marked things down that never came to pass.
The example from Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says that that thing was spoken presumptuously not that the prophet was false. Just that that prophecy wasn’t of God.
My second thought is the nature of prophecy. I remember reading somewhere that it is explained that a dream within a dream was often the structure used to reveal prophecy. I’ve had many dreams within a dream but I wouldn’t say that they were prophecy. Its entirely possible that someone called to a very high position, such as Prophet, Seer, Revelator that had such a dream might misinterperet a dream within a dream as prophecy and speak it as such.
Lastly, and a little off course of prophecy is this. If we are to revoke the status of a prophet because of their failed prophecies, what about their mortal actions?
Many old testiment prophets did villainous acts that in our understanding would withdraw the spirit from them.
The point is that many of the rationales for dismissing Mormonism can be used to dismiss any other religion. After all religion is based on faith, which is the belief in something in the absense of proof thereof. It is the substance of the knowledge of things unseen.
I agree, Charles, with your assessment on rationale to dismiss all religion. And you could be right that when the current Bible was canonized, there were many things purposefully left out that could have been used to discount the whole book. There is no question about that possibility. But because Christianity is so old, and because Mormonism is so relatively new, we are left with what we are left with. But I don’t think you can justify belief in Mormonism simply based on the premise that other religions might have covered up occurrences that would have proved their religious beliefs and proclamations faulty. The fact is that Mormonism is rife with actual evidence of this, not ju8st conjecture. And as others have said in different posts on this very site–and what they always fall back on–is that it is a matter of faith. Either you believe or you don’t. But my point is that to believe in something that has been PROVEN faulty is the spiritual equivelent of burying your head in the sand, ignoring the problems based on the fact that your leliefs make you feel safe and good. It seems that so many people–not just Mormons, but people from various evangelical religions around the world–are so caught up in faith and believing in things unseen and untested that they are willing to believe ANYTHING. Tell me, what is the difference between a Muslim suicide bomber and a radical LDS splinter group with literally hundreds of members proclaiming that they receive messages from the divine telling them to do everything from molest their children to taking multiple wives to murder? Answer: NOTHING. And I assume that most of the posters on this site are mainstream LDS members, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t guilted and prodded into restrcited their lives from some of the most basic pleasures and freedoms–like coffee and cigarettes and wearing a different pair of non-sacred underwear from day to day. I guess I just don’t understand why people would want to impose such limits on themselves when the purveyors of the doctrine imposing these rules are proven over and over to be talking out of their proverbial asses. I mean, Brigham Young, when he was head of the church, said that Adam was actually God. How can someone who says things like that be considered to be in direct connection with the Almighty?
First, it seems that you have a concern about believing something that has been PROVEN wrong. I should ask in what respect? Consdier that much of what you are saying has been proven wrong is what a person said. I think we can all agree, without rehashing the discussion, that prophets are human and prone to making mistakes.
Furthermore, if you say that only one thing needs to be proven false to disregard the whole, that is itself a falacy. How do you account for the things that have been proven to be right?
The truth is there is equal evidence for each side, and it depends a lot on your paradigm as to how you view it.
You also seem to be really hung up on the fact that “we are not allowed” to do so many of the pleasurable things. I woudl submit Alma 41:10 “…wickedness never was happiness.”
The Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) instructs us to avoid certain things and the proper use of others. Tobacco, alcohol, drugs and other “pleasures” of the world are addictive and create habbits that are paramount to being in bondage to those things.
If someone gives up a habbit that is compulsive then they are freeing themselves from that bondage and allowing themselves to excercise their agency.
A lot of restrictions we put on ourselves, we take on as covenants. That is we are promised blessings through obedience. Those blessings come in many different forms and are not themselves tangible. But we have made promises to keep them and by doing so we may restrict our actions with regards to things others would find pleasurable.
Jericho- I’m wondering about two things. Mormanity is a religion blog, but your approach (lists of “facts” etc.) seems to me to leave no room for faith. Yet faith is the essence of religion, and the stated first principle of the LDS church. Faith and seeking for the influence of the Holy Ghost are huge, everyday parts of my religious life. So what do you believe about the role of faith in your life?
And second, you obviously spend a lot of time reading and researching the LDS church, yet aren’t really interested in the positive things it offers. So what is your motivation for posting here? What are you trying to accomplish?
I realize these are fairly personal questions, and you certainly don’t have to respond, but I’m curious all the same.
I don’t think Jericho is speaking from a Christian standpoint at all.
Scan his blog (google “Jericho Brown”). There are other Jericho Browns, so look at the blogger.
But don’t look *too* closely. The pornography on his blog gives a strong impression that he’s not pro-christian.
I am really trying to hold my temper right here, so give me a little slack, Jeff, but where the hell do you get off judging what point of view I’m coming from, Indy Mormon? Just because you have hangups about the human body doesn’t mean everybody else has to, nor does it mean that every Christian does, either. So it’s okay for Mormons to marry multiple women and father multiple children that they can’t afford to even pay for, but it’s bad to look at a naked woman? Please. Now, on to more significant matters:
Charles, you quoted from the BOM, saying that wickedness does not equal happiness. My question to you is: Where did you get your ideas about what is or is not wicked? I’m sure there are some obvious things, like killing someone or raping someone, but smoking? Drinking coffee? I’m not saying you should indulge in these things if you don’t want to, but the fact that you don’t because someone else said that they are wicked is another thing all together. By handing down these mandates, the Church has basically decided for you what you can and cannot handle. Ever heard of moderation? How about being non-judgemental? The Mormon church is full of judgment. If you decided that you wanted to continue following much of what Mormonism preaches is right, but to indulge in a cigarette or a cup of coffee now and then, you know as well as I do that you’d be looked down upon by the other followers–or worse.
C. Jones:I’m pretty sure I answer all your questions under the earlier post on this blog titled: Knowledge In Part, from July 7th.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
It’s sounding more and more like you’re an ex-mormon. (Takes one to know one.) Am I right?
Wickedness is interperated many ways. There are certainly the obvious mortal sins of the world.
But wickedness is also the embrace of the natural man. Remember the natural man has desires which are to fufill the appetite.
I’m a little rusty on Platonic philosophy but the appetites were a big part of his thinking too. In other terms you have the Id, Ego and SuperEgo.
These are all examples of how the natural man is a danger. by indulging in the carnal pleasures, which would be, but are not limited to, p0rnography, smoking, drinking, drugs etc. we encourage the natural man which creates conflict with the spirit.
The church simply teaches us the consequences for such actions. We are counciled and in some cases commanded to avoid things that will deprive us of the spirit.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JB, I had read the post you mentioned previously, but not with any specific questions in mind at that time. So not to put words in your mouth, but here’s what I got out of it this time. As to the question of faith in your own life, you believe in the existance of God, but think faith is overrated or abused. So it’s not really a big part of your day to day experience, or used as a guide in the decisions you make.
As far as why you post here, you say you can’t stand people willingly staying in bondage to people conspiring to deceive them. And that Mormons are barking up the wrong tree. Is that a fair representation of what you believe?
For what it’s worth, now I’ll give you at least a partial answer to one of your questions in that post. You might not like it much though, because it involves faith…You wonder why members of this church seem to be always giving it a free pass, or the benefit of the doubt. My answer would be that my faith is not based on Joseph Smith, although I love him, admire him, and believe he was a prophet. (Faith being defined as the belief in who is the only way to salvation) My faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ and his atonement. I also believe that the Book of Mormon is true. Not because my parents said so, or it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, but through an entirely different feeling I get when I read it, and a love for the insights, guidance, peace, and truth I find there. You might answer that I don’t really know what I’m feeling, I would say, yes I do, and there we are.
JB, you seem surprised that we would think it’s wrong to view pornography. But JB, since you recognize that it’s obviously wrong to physically violate another person, why should it not be obvious that sexually explicit materials are wrong – they stir up lust, degrade women as playthings and promote dangerous callousness toward others. It is no surprise that Christ warned that not only is adultery wrong, but lusting after women is wrong. Matthew 5:31: “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
It’s not some minute restriction like not eating pork or avoiding coffee. If we want to follow God, we must respect his most sacred Creation – mankind – and not view and treat each other as disposable playthings, as objects for our own selfish gain, as trash to be expoited and discarded. God wants us to love Him, to honor Him, and to strive to follow Him. To look at porn, to have the attitudes that it engenders, to yearn for sin and rejoice in sin, is a denial of the faith and of who we are. It is a base rejection of God and Christ. I know many Christians are entangled in the web of pornography, but they need to escape with all the urgency of one escaping from a burning building – for they will burn with more than mere lust in the end, but with anguish and regret. They will find themselves prisoners who have thrown away they key to freedom and offended their God and His Creations.
JB, there is plenty to argue with about what we Mormons believe. But if there is one thing I could ask you to seriously consider changing, it would be this: drop porn from your life. You may approach it as an “artsy” and “tasteful” thing, avoiding the worst of the genre, but even that which you have on your site is something that I think would be wise to remove. Honestly, I am convinced that the use of such materials makes any of us less than who we are meant to be.
Jericho essential scores a home run which no one here can retort. So when Mormanity can not attack the argument, he then attacks the person (just like Grant Palmer, when Mormanity labels him an anti-Mormon pretending to be a Mormon).
Talk about behavior that is degrading, dangerous, and callousness and will lead to anguish and regret. Mormanity may find such behavior artsy, tasteful, and legitimate polemics, but he will find the more he does it, he will have completely throw away the key to intellectual integrity.
Anyways, by doing so Mormanity has essentially admitted that Jericho won the debate that Mormanity started.
Mormography, the arguments about allegedly failed LDS prophecies have been dealt with already at LDSFAQ and elsewhere on this blog. My failure to respond again to Jericho is just from lack of time on my part, not from lack of substance. See http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml and http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophets.shtml if you're interested in answers, but I won't be surprised if you don't bother.
The very first thing I did was go to the FAQ and I did not see a response. Ball is your court. And what evidence do you have I would not bother? None! Yet again that is your frustration coming out. Nasty little habit of yours.
Before I even posted I search for the name Patten, the history of the church reference,etc and did not find responses.
BTW, I also search Jericho Brown the other day to try see for myself this Artsy Pornography was worse than lacking intellectual chastity. I found what I believe to be the blog, but not the image.
I appears the page I searched for Patten was the fulfilled prophecies, my bad. Thanks for the corrected link. See how much effort would have been saved had you just provided the link to begin with instead of focusing on the spec in Jericho's eye. Which of course would have actually taken less time. You use that time excuse alot, though, it never ceases to amaze me how much time you have.
The response to why "even twelve including himself" prophecy was not fulfilled is that Patten must have shirked his assignment. Ouch! I guess, talking bad about the dead is necessary some times.
I was researching Jonah and the day Jesus was crucified in the context of false prophets when I came across this blog entry. So, before you accuse me have not search your sites, which I have, can you just tell me what day Mormon's think Jesus was crucified. Christian apologist tend to say Thursday, for no other reason than prevent Jesus from being a false prophet, while others point to an abundance of evidence (the day the spices were thought to be have been bought, etc, without explicitly calling Jesus a false prophet) that it was Friday as is tradition.
Bytheway, when I googled, Jonah false prophet, the first result was a retort to yourself (lumped with the Jevohah witness) that I found compelling. I will not link to it because you have a habit labeling links that retort yourself as anti-Mormon and deleting them.
Sorry, but not from a lack of trying, I have not found your response to the history of the church 56 years thing. I did find other responses, which sum up, 1. no evidence that third hand history of the church is accurate (that is it is not canonized) and 2. That there is no evidence it was JS personal opinion or revelation.
Point 2 goes back to our discussion on the principle of falsifiability, but the canonization point I will let slide, but that now puts one in the corner that only canon can be prophecy.
As for our previous conversation on the principle of falsifiability, I found it interesting that you do not accept vast majority interpretation of Deut 18:22 of a false prophecy makes a false prophet, as it is true by definition independent of the bible. Being that it is true by definition, Muslims accept Deut 18:22, but reject other parts of the bible that show prophets (imperfect, but not majorly flawed) as fallible as common men. For example, King David was a great prophet, so could not have committed adultery, that is a corrupt addition to the bible.
Your entire apologetic approach is that if the Mormon's are wrong, then so are the Evangelicals. I do not necessarily disagree and I imagine there Muslims linking to your site, thanking you for proven them right.
Was also kinda of surprise when you got excite about the term "dim view" of a prophet. I was paraphrasing the audio version of Understanding Islam by Daniel Peterson. I do not think he used the word dim, but made an implied implication that how fallible prophets are is matter of view. (BTW, I am excited to have found a transcription of his lecture http://rsc.byu.edu/pubDPetersonUnderstandingIslam.php) Your view of prophets with no limits of fallibility, whether it is the biblical view or not, is a dim view compared to other religions especially Islam.
The principle of fallibility that you produced was the other one from Deut., leading people to follow other Gods. Yet you never explained how this principle proves David Koresh or Warren Jeffs are false prophet, as they follow they claim your same God. You just did not have time, right?
JB's point 3. I could not find your response on the FAQ. I did find the May 18 prophecy which you claim is fulfilled, but not the May 6. However, I found a FAIR response, which really struggled to provide adequate explanation. The FAIR defense went back to saying the bible is wrong too, which of course is not a defense, but conceding the point. FAIR would have been better off declaring the prophecy not canon.
BTW, Muhammad had a similar "few years" prophecy problem. During some military conflict with another tribe the Muslims were prophesied to be victorious in a few years. After about 4 years the fulfillment of the prophecy was questioned, then Muhammed clarified a few years to be with in 9(?) years. In a nick of time some battle was won and the prophecy was declared fulfilled.
JB's point 4: I could not find a response on site or FAIR. JB offered the HC re-imagining of the prophecy already.
JB's ponit 5: I could not find a response on your site. I predict that being a conditional prophecy, the response would be prophecy unfulfilled because somebody shirked their assignment. I also predicted that the response would be to play with the definition of treasure, despite the fact that gold and silver are spelled out. Indeed this what FAIR attempt to argue. To my surprise, FAIR did not argue the shirked assignment, but rather despite Section 111 being canon, parts of it were not divine revelation, but personal plans.
JB's point 6. I did not find this one addressed on your site. I will let this one slide as fulfilled, though not necessarily prophecy. Numerous studies have show that astrology is effective because of its vagueness. I am sure we have all seen videos of people exclaiming how accurate their palm reading was or theirs months astrology was only to find that every month and every palm reading was identical. The prophecy emphasizes a natural (not man made) destruction, but could be reinterpreted to be the civil war. Indeed, following the prophecy plan of action, the Mormon's sent missionaries to the North Countries Britain, Scandinavia where converts were purchased via the perpetual immigration fund.
JB's point 7: You concede it has merit, but offer the standard assignments may have been shirked. Then you offer a re-imagining of the prophecy to be Ohio, not Missouri. Once again the principle of falsifiability is violated. With this reasoning no prophecy can be proven false, because it can always be re-imagined. You know how odd this sounds, so you take round about paths to say it.
I have bothered to review all 7 points and my original assessment of Mormanity's behavior stands vindicated. It would have taken Mormanity less time to simply link to the supposed asked and answered responses (only 2 of 7, 1 of the 2 he concedes has merit), but instead he chose to take more time to respond to JB with ad hominem by turning a supposed artsy nude on his blog to paint him as a struggling porn addict in need of help. He then repeats the behavior pattern by supposing that I am not interested in answers and do not take the time to bother, when all the evidence on this blog is to the contrary. Evidence is that Mormanity struggles with chastity of the intellect. When he struggles with a response he does not bother to recognize it, but instead plays dumb as if he does not understand, resorts to ad hominem, double standards, and lack of time excuse belied by the prolific blog its self.
As far as I can tell the consensus agreement is that Jesus was crucified on Friday, and that half days count as whole days in the Jewish calendar. The only confusion is why the prophecy just does not say 3 days, instead of explicitly clarifying 3 days and 3 nights. Given that the gospels were written years after the fact it is hard to imagine that the writers would not have noticed this, so it must have made sense to them. Mormanity might consider adding this example to his prophecy articles.
Nonetheless, it has become abundantly clear that Mormanity is not at all interested in genuine dialog or discovering answers.
1. With regards to the Stowell Forgery, I pointed out the facts that Hinckley: A – Did not consult with his historical department, not even to recommend a document authenticator B – No name has ever been released regarding who was authenticating this document C – That is it hard to authenticate a document that is locked away in the first presidency's fault D – It was never announced that the document was procured until after the secrecy agreement of the purchase was broken. E – If there is no limit to the fallibility of prophets, then there should be no concern for admitting that Hinckley suppressed the Stowell Forgery. For pointing these facts out Mormanity hurls false accusations of not only spin, but hostile spin at me. Then after falsely accusing me, he then proceeds to engage in the act of spin by manipulate the definition of the word suppression.
2. Mormanity's apologetic approach is to claim that Mormonism falls perfectly into Biblical patterns. When I pointed out the fact that the bible recognizes the principle of falsifiability of prophets, Mormanity ran away. After insistent prodding Mormanity, eventually conceded thatsome principle of falsifiability is required, but rejected that a false prophecy makes one a false prophet. This of course is interesting because it is true by definition, however, he offered the-following-some-other-God as an evidence of a false prophet. What is interesting is on one occasion, in a comparative religion discussion, I used the phrase Biblical God verse Mormon God which resorted in accusations of me being offensive, because Mormon's claim to worship the same God. This, of course, was a classic example of phony outrage and phony outrage is evidence of someone not interested in genuine dialog. More interesting, the Pope is considered to be the divine interpreter and voice of God by truly devout Catholics. Mormons of course reject this. Mormanity's basis for rejecting prophets is that they worship some other God. So even though James Strang and Warren Jeffs (which possess the same restored priesthood as the LDS and belief in the Book of Mormon) must worship some other God. Wow, if they and their followers worship some other God, then what of the evangelicals and the Catholics. Talk about being offensive.
3. The only time Mormanity attempted to provide any evidence of me not being interested in genuine dialog, is one post where I mentioned that I feel sorry for him and the amount time Mormanity spends on the blog. Most interesting is of my numerous posts, this is what he comes up with? Not only this, but taken in context my comments were appropriate. I was being relentlessly – relentlessly – attacked by his cronies. Not once – not once – did Mormanity address the attacks. One of the common attacks I received was what a loser I must be for the amount of time I spend responding on the blog. This of course is odd, given that amount time I spend is but a fraction that Mormanity spends, ergo my defensive statement.
It is now abundantly clear that Mormanity was never really interested in searching with an open mind and to keep seeking. He is content only with reasserting his own pre-conceived notions while referring to anyone that does not accept his own notions, as being full of pre-deceived notions.