To all Mormons

[Fit4Christ]

CFR

CFR?? What's that?

If this is true it will be an easy task for you to produce one, a single, post that I have made in the last two weeks that falls outside the scope of an improved me. Other than my responding to your improper comments.

How about #28 in this one on : www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8587322#post8587322

No, her posts demonstrated a serious lack of cognitive ability. The vitrolic babble which she presented was detrimental to the Christian messages that are being discussed here. It is my opinion that she was out of her league and would be better off leaving intellegent debate to others.

I think the slip-shod manner in which she re-entered the forum is perfectly examplarary of the level of competence she demonstrated in debating.

That's not rude or condescending?

I'm curious. You talk about God forgiving you for your improper tone. It sounds as though you are saying that since you are forgiven your trespass that it should no longer be a matter of discussion? Is this what you are saying?

Yes. If you are unable to forgive and still dwell on the past, then that's your issue, not mine.

If it is, I wonder why you would be so focused on my past mistakes. It seems to me that the appropriate action for a person of that thought would be to move on - irregardless of who made the mistake. In the last few posts I have responded to what you have just said while you continue to bring forth past actions on my part. Do you find that fair and appropriate?

Actually yes, I do find it not only fair and appropriate, but Biblical:

Luke 17:3-4
3So watch yourselves. "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him."
1 Timothy 5:20
20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.
Proverbs 9:7-8
7 "Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Which one are you - the wicked man or the wise man?

Am I ready to move on? Definately.

If you wanted to move on, then why all the extra commentary?

Yes, context is very good.

For instance, in this thread someone stated that if an LDS prophet made a prophecy that did not come true that marked them as a false prophet. Then I responded that the same could be said for prophets in the Bible.

If read in context my comments are intended to ensure that the same criteria is applied to the LDS prophets as is applied to Biblical prophets.

No, read as stated, they are out of context. For the reasons they did not come true are stated further on. Comparing them to the false prophecies of JS or BY or any other lds prophet are unfounded. The Bible prophecies that you allege did not come true have been explained while that prophet was still alive and still under God's direction. The lds false prophecies are trying to be explained away by people who were not there, did not live at that time, and are generations removed from what was actually recorded. There is no explanation from JS on why the 2nd coming of Jesus didn't occur in 1891, nor did BY at any time retract his statement of men on the moon. Other people after them who were not involved in the revelation rationalized it and tried to explain it away. There is a difference.

Your comments about compassion, and God changing His mind, should be directed to the person that believes a prophecy that does not come about is evidence of a false prophet. I used that misconception as the baseline for my argument - to point out that the criteria indicts Bible prophets as well.

No, my comments are directed at you, since you are the one that seems to indicate God can't change His mind and have compassion for His children and are so adiment that the Bible has false prophecies in it. The other person did not indicate that was their way of thinking. Are going to keep ducking the question or answer it?

So, within the proper context: with what part of my argument do you find fault?

Whose proper context - yours or mine?

That is right - I did not answer it.

On your part, you have not answered whether it is supported responses, or pointing out the vitrolic portion of your post that you expected from me. You also have not answered what is wrong with either of those. You have not answered where the commandment you cited was located.

It appears that you leave more questions unanswered than I do. Whatever point you are attempting to make by mentioning this I guess it applies triply to you.

To paraphrase another lds, it sounds like you are saying "nanny, nanny, nanny, you are worse than I am". I deliberately did not answer because your questions were rude and condescending and I did not wish to acknowledge them. If you would like to restate them in a pleasant manner, I will address them if you like.

Is God all-knowing? If He is, then why didn't He make allowances for their repentance when He issued the prophecy?

God is all knowing. He also gives us the freedom to choose right from wrong, His path or our path. When we choose our path and turn away from Him, we face our own consequences. As I was trying to point out and you were not understanding, He did make allowances, just not in the specific verses you quoted. He did it in His way. If you don't like His way, then take it up with Him.

Shouldn't this be directed to the person who originally offered this insight into false prophets and false prophecies?

Nope, still directed at you.

Ok. Drop it.

Why go through all that if you just wanted to drop it??

 

[skylark1]

How about #28 in this one on : www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8587322#post8587322

That's not rude or condescending?

I don't think that is a very good post to choose for an example. There were....... unusual circumstances.

Ran's comments have not been rude or condescending on the baptism thread.

 

[Fit4Christ]

I don't think that is a very good post to choose for an example. There were....... unusual circumstances.

Ran's comments have not been rude or condescending on the baptism thread.

He asked me for just 1 quote within the last 2 weeks. Seeing as I have been gone for 10 of those days, I didn't have much choice but to go by his list of postings and that was the first one I came across.

If Ran has truly turned his comments around as he had promised, then hooray for him !

 

[Fit4Christ]

Ran-

If you agree with Skylark1 that the post I presented had "unusual circumstances", then I will offer your comments to Romans in this #46 of this thread: www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8542111#post8542111

If sometime in the future you work up enough nerve to direct your babble towards me - I'll be happy to point our your errors again.

or your post #86 in this thread about the crickets chirping.

Ok. I provided the references. The only thing I hear in response is the crickets that Ammon mentioned.

I believe any of those will satisfy your request for just 1 in the last 2 weeks.
But, in your defense and reading the other postings you have done recently, I see that you have truly changed from the old Ran that I remember. For that, I commend you .

 

[Ran77]

CFR?? What's that?

Call For Reference.

I would like you to provide a quote where I said that.

How about #28 in this one on : www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8587322#post8587322

That's not rude or condescending?

You got me on that one. However, I was too busy being rude to be condescending - that must have been a lucky by-product.

Yes. If you are unable to forgive and still dwell on the past, then that's your issue, not mine.

On what do you base your view that I am unable to forgive? I have not addressed the matter of my forgiving, or not forgiving, anyone.

What I perceive from this is that I attempted to make sure I understood your view. Then used that understanding as the base from which to make my point. And you responded to it with an attack - an accusation against my character. Specifically that I am unable to forgive.


More clearly stated, my original point is that it is hypocritical to expect your mistakes to be forgotten and yet alright for you to dwell on the mistakes of others. It is a double-standard.

Actually yes, I do find it not only fair and appropriate, but Biblical:

Luke 17:3-4
3So watch yourselves. "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him."
1 Timothy 5:20
20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.
Proverbs 9:7-8
7 "Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Ok, so you make inappropriate remarks and I have pointed it out publicly so that others may take warning. From that correction I have received insult from you. (The I am unable to forgive statement)

You correctly pointed out that I was rude to Grace (or whatever false identity he was using at the time) and I agreed. No insult. No hate.


Of course, you probably mean that it applies to you. However, the way I see things is that I have made an effort to be more socially acceptable and have been having lovely discussions with Skylark when you came in with a post with inappropriate comments. Is that the effort of someone rebuking a sinful man? Or is that someone stirring up trouble?

Wait, I can see this one coming - you have already been forgiven for those actions. Yet you seem to be contending that it is alright to rebuke me for my actions that are even further in the past than your own.

Which one are you - the wicked man or the wise man?

Ah Grasshopper. When you can snatch the pebble from my hand it will be time to go.

If you wanted to move on, then why all the extra commentary?

And if you are ready to move on then why respond to all my extra commentary?

No, read as stated, they are out of context. For the reasons they did not come true are stated further on. Comparing them to the false prophecies of JS or BY or any other lds prophet are unfounded. The Bible prophecies that you allege did not come true have been explained while that prophet was still alive and still under God's direction.

I believe that the LDS prophecies in question have been explained. You seem focused on the necessity for the prophet giving the prophecy giving the explanation about its change. However, if they are under God's direction that isn't necessary. Since God knows all about the situation He is capable of explaining it to whomever He wants.

I see the need for it to be the same prophet as an artificial distinction.

The lds false prophecies are trying to be explained away by people who were not there, did not live at that time, and are generations removed from what was actually recorded.

CFR.

I would like proof that the poeple explaining them: a) did not live at that time, b) are generations removed from what was recorded.

There is no explanation from JS on why the 2nd coming of Jesus didn't occur in 1891,

No need. Joseph Smith didn't live that long and the prophecy was based on that contingency.

nor did BY at any time retract his statement of men on the moon.

I don't recall any "prophecy" about men on the moon. CFR.

Other people after them who were not involved in the revelation rationalized it and tried to explain it away. There is a difference.

In order for that to be true each of the books we discussed would have to been written by the actual prophet and not transcribed by someone else at a later time. Do you have proof that this is so. Is there proof that Jonah, and not someone else, wrote the Book of Jonah?

No, my comments are directed at you, since you are the one that seems to indicate God can't change His mind...

CFR

and have compassion for His children...

CFR

...and are so adiment that the Bible has false prophecies in it. The other person did not indicate that was their way of thinking. Are going to keep ducking the question or answer it?

CFR that I stated the other particpant thought this.

Whose proper context - yours or mine?

Since we are talking about a statement that I made the obvious answer is: mine.

To paraphrase another lds, it sounds like you are saying "nanny, nanny, nanny, you are worse than I am". I deliberately did not answer because your questions were rude and condescending and I did not wish to acknowledge them. If you would like to restate them in a pleasant manner, I will address them if you like.

8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;

I think you find them rude because they reveal that your statement was untrue. I think that you did not want to acknowledge them because you are in an unwinnable position with them.

I am interested in how the question about where the commandment you cited was located is rude?

God is all knowing. He also gives us the freedom to choose right from wrong, His path or our path. When we choose our path and turn away from Him, we face our own consequences.

And won't He already know what path we will choose?

As I was trying to point out and you were not understanding,

CFR.

How is it that you know what I understand or do not understand?

He did make allowances, just not in the specific verses you quoted. He did it in His way. If you don't like His way, then take it up with Him.

CFR - that I don't like His way.

 

[Ran77]

For that, I commend you .

I'd prefer that you didn't.

 

[Fit4Christ]

I'd prefer that you didn't.

You're right. I'm wrong. You win. I lose. You don't want to take a compliment from me, so I can only assume that your "change of heart" applies to all others but me. Sorry I wasted so much of your time trying to address a concern you had with false prophecies in the Bible.

God Bless.

 

[skylark1]

I have been reading this thread, and I admit that I am having a difficult time following the discussion.

Ran, do you believe that God can change his mind because of his mercy, especially when men repent? Do you believe that a prophecy is false if, when people humbled themselves, repented, and asked God for mercy, God did not fulfill the judgment that he had warned them of?

 

[Ran77]

I have been reading this thread, and I admit that I am having a difficult time following the discussion.

Ran, do you believe that God can change his mind because of his mercy, especially when men repent? Do you believe that a prophecy is false if, when people humbled themselves, repented, and asked God for mercy, God did not fulfill the judgment that he had warned them of?

I believe that God is pretty steady on His part. Meaning that I am not convinced that God changes His mind. I believe that God wanted the people of Nineva to repent as much when He offered the prophecy as when He voided it. Through that process I do not feel that His mind, or His purpose, changed.

However, we mortals are much more fickle. We can think one thing today and another thing tomorrow. We can be sinful today and be told that destruction is at hand and be repentant tomorrow.

I believe that God tells us what is necessary to see His purposes come about. I believe those instructions can change based on the situation of the people - as long as they don't contradict important eternal principles.

For me these instances are not evidence of false prophets, or false prophecies, they are examples that what God has to say to us may vary from time to time. When we are sinful He promises destruction and when we are obedient He promises us life. He is responding to us the way we are right now.

And so I believe it is with the LDS prophets. At one point the LDS Church was instructed to practice polygamy - I suspect because it was important at the time. Now the condition/situation of the people has changed and the instruction we have received says that we will not practice it right now. That could be a change within the LDS people, or it could be a change in the people around us. We don't know and it is not important.

The Bible has illustrated that God can "change" His mind. I oppose the stance that the situations in the Bible are all instances of God changing His mind, but when applied to the LDS it is proof of false prophets. It is a double standard.

 

[Ran77]

You don't want to take a compliment from me, so I can only assume that your "change of heart" applies to all others but me.

You know what they say about assumptions.


Your statement implies that I have shown some negative response to you. Why? Because I have pointed out portions of your post that I believe are incorrect? Because I have brought attention to comments that I feel are inappropriate? Because I have asked you to support some of your statements that I feel have been invented by you?

To me this has been debate without rancor. It is the same that I offer Skylark and the others. I have responded to your questions. If you perceive a difference - perhaps it dwells in the questions you ask and the topics you choose to persue.

Sorry I wasted so much of your time trying to address a concern you had with false prophecies in the Bible.

I do not have any concerns about false prophecies in the Bible. Although, I appreciate your desire to help me understand it better.

 

[skylark1]

I believe that God is pretty steady on His part. Meaning that I am not convinced that God changes His mind. I believe that God wanted the people of Nineva to repent as much when He offered the prophecy as when He voided it. Through that process I do not feel that His mind, or His purpose, changed.

In hindsight, I probably should haved worded what I wrote differently. I do not feel that God's purpose changed when the people of Nivea repented, but I do think that God responded to the people of Nivevah's repentance with mercy when he cancelled the threatened punishment.

However, we mortals are much more fickle. We can think one thing today and another thing tomorrow. We can be sinful today and be told that destruction is at hand and be repentant tomorrow.

I believe that God tells us what is necessary to see His purposes come about. I believe those instructions can change based on the situation of the people - as long as they don't contradict important eternal principles.

For me these instances are not evidence of false prophets, or false prophecies, they are examples that what God has to say to us may vary from time to time. When we are sinful He promises destruction and when we are obedient He promises us life. He is responding to us the way we are right now.

And so I believe it is with the LDS prophets. At one point the LDS Church was instructed to practice polygamy - I suspect because it was important at the time. Now the condition/situation of the people has changed and the instruction we have received says that we will not practice it right now. That could be a change within the LDS people, or it could be a change in the people around us. We don't know and it is not important.

The Bible has illustrated that God can "change" His mind. I oppose the stance that the situations in the Bible are all instances of God changing His mind, but when applied to the LDS it is proof of false prophets. It is a double standard.

I don't see the connection that you are trying to make with LDS practicing plural marriage. What does that have to do with prophesy, repentance, and God's mercy?

 

[Ran77]

In hindsight, I probably should haved worded what I wrote differently. I do not feel that God's purpose changed when the people of Nivea repented, but I do think that God responded to the people of Nivevah's repentance with mercy when he cancelled the threatened punishment.

If there is something in this statement that requires a response - I'm not seeing it. Meaning, if there is a question in there - please restate it.

I don't see the connection that you are trying to make with LDS practicing plural marriage. What does that have to do with prophesy, repentance, and God's mercy?

You asked me if I thought God could change His mind because of His mercy. My response indicates that I don't believe God changes His mind as much as we change. The inhabitants changed and God adjusted His prophecy to match their repentant hearts.

In the case of polygamy (which is frequently cited as false prophecy because of the change in policy) a prophecy was given to establish it and then a second prophecy was given to suspend it. I was comparing two situations where a second prophecy went in the opposite direction of the first.

Your focus is on repentence and mercy. My statement doesn't reflect your specific focus on the topic.

However, my presentation is focused on "Changed" prophecies and that I believe they exist because mortals change and situations with mortals change. Nineva and polygamy both fit into this focus as I see it.

If you want me to address the narrow (very specific - not an insult about narrow mindedness) topic of God changing His mind because of mercy in regards to repentance - then allow me to offer this response instead.

No. God can not abide evil. He can not change His mind to allow it. If people repent - they have changed. God still does not abide evil, but because the people have changed He can now accept them. In the prophecy to Nineva He has not changed His mind about allowing the evil people of the city to live. He has merely changed His prophecy (His instructions to the people) to reflect the change that has happened among that people. The new prophecy now reflects His willingness to allow the good people of the city to live.

In many cases prophecies are responses to the current situation. Situations change and as they do the prophecy that God would share with us changes. That is why it is important today to have a living prophet - to give us prophecies that reflect the situations that exist today.

 

[Fit4Christ]

If there is something in this statement that requires a response - I'm not seeing it. Meaning, if there is a question in there - please restate it.





You asked me if I thought God could change His mind because of His mercy. My response indicates that I don't believe God changes His mind as much as we change. The inhabitants changed and God adjusted His prophecy to match their repentant hearts.

In the case of polygamy (which is frequently cited as false prophecy because of the change in policy) a prophecy was given to establish it and then a second prophecy was given to suspend it. I was comparing two situations where a second prophecy went in the opposite direction of the first.

Your focus is on repentence and mercy. My statement doesn't reflect your specific focus on the topic.

However, my presentation is focused on "Changed" prophecies and that I believe they exist because mortals change and situations with mortals change. Nineva and polygamy both fit into this focus as I see it.

If you want me to address the narrow (very specific - not an insult about narrow mindedness) topic of God changing His mind because of mercy in regards to repentance - then allow me to offer this response instead.

No. God can not abide evil. He can not change His mind to allow it. If people repent - they have changed. God still does not abide evil, but because the people have changed He can now accept them. In the prophecy to Nineva He has not changed His mind about allowing the evil people of the city to live. He has merely changed His prophecy (His instructions to the people) to reflect the change that has happened among that people. The new prophecy now reflects His willingness to allow the good people of the city to live.

In many cases prophecies are responses to the current situation. Situations change and as they do the prophecy that God would share with us changes. That is why it is important today to have a living prophet - to give us prophecies that reflect the situations that exist today.

Respectfully, if I am understanding you correctly, you believe that a second prophecy that "suspends" the first is not considered a false prophecy?

If that is true, then I don't see how you can claim polygamy is a "changed" prophecy, yet claim in your earlier posts that the alleged false Bible prophecy verses you cited (Ninevah, Canaanites, etc.) are false. The standard that you are applying to polygamy has to apply to those others, and you just stated so above in the case of Ninevah. If the stated Bible prophecies are false, then polygamy is also a false prophecy. If polygamy is a "changed" prophecy, as you stated you believe, so must the others be as well.

 

[Rescued One]

In many cases prophecies are responses to the current situation. Situations change and as they do the prophecy that God would share with us changes. That is why it is important today to have a living prophet - to give us prophecies that reflect the situations that exist today.

We now have the Spirit of Truth to guide us.

 

[Ran77]

We now have the Spirit of Truth to guide us.

And based on the number of denominations within Christianity, that teach different concepts, I would say that it isn't guiding eveyone to the same Truth.

 

[Ran77]

Respectfully, if I am understanding you correctly, you believe that a second prophecy that "suspends" the first is not considered a false prophecy?

Yes. (Although, I thought you were finished discussing this topic with me.)

 

[nessa8223]

Peter and Paul, we know, were called of Christ because it is stated in the Bible. This is not a matter of dogmatic assertaion, it's a matter of fact. Of course, I say this because I'm dogmatic in my faith in knowing that the Bible is the true word of God.

The key word is FAITH. How do we know the Bible is true and not made up by all of those people we call prophets or holy men called of God? Faith. How do I know the BoM is true? Faith. I guess I could say I am dogmatic in MY faith in knowing that the Book of Mormon IS another testament of Jesus Christ AND the Bible is as well the word of God.

 

[Rescued One]

And based on the number of denominations within Christianity, that teach different concepts, I would say that it isn't guiding eveyone to the same Truth.

What is this "it" you are referring to?

 

[Visage of Glory]

What is this "it" you are referring to?

I am fairly sure that he is referring to the Spirit of Truth that Christianity claims to have.

 

[Ran77]

What is this "it" you are referring to?

The Spirit of Truth that you mentioned in your post.