How Can We Know When We Hear

[Freedom in Truth]

You seem to have come close. From Ehrman:

The New Testament as we actually have it, I knew, was the product of human hands, the hands of the scribes who transmitted it. Then I began to see that not just the scribal text but the original text itself was a very human book. This stood very much at odds with how I had regarded the text in my late teens as a newly minted "born-again" Christian, convinced that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God and that the biblical words themselves had come to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don't have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. Moreover, I came to think that my earlier views of inspiration were not only irrelevant, they were probably wrong. For the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstances that he didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them.

It is an inescapable conclusion that if God didnâ??t preserve the words He hadnâ??t inspired them? It seems to me that there are other possible conclusions. After all, Godâ??s original words were Hebrew and Greek - I donâ??t think an â??exactâ? translation is even possible. (And who knows what â??languageâ? Godâ??s thoughts are in.) But, since Godâ??s words were written by humans remembering what was said (with the aid of the HS), maybe the autographs didnâ??t even contain Godâ??s â??exactâ? words.

â??even if God had inspired the original words, we don't have the original wordsâ? Since we donâ??t have the original autographs we canâ??t know for sure that we donâ??t have the same words. Hypothetically, why would an exact copy of something not be as good? Were just the autographs inspired? Were the Israelites to worship the 10 Commandments tablets or the God who wrote them?

God chooses to work through humans! (Sometimes I personally have a hard time relating to this - I am by nature a bit of a perfectionist and often prefer doing things myself!) Humans are imperfect, and humans have free will - but God is sovereign and God can accomplish His Will in spite of our free will. God allowed variants, etc. but still protected His message to us. He could have sent down an infinite number of books from heaven in all languages, but He chose not to. Why do you think He opted to use humans instead of just doing it Himself?

Ehrman seemed to need to have Godâ??s exact words - but why? It looks like he tried to put God in a box that he himself designed, and God didnâ??t fit. He rejected Truth - all of it - because he demanded Godâ??s original words (which he doesnâ??t even know he doesnâ??t have). That is sad. I guess words were more important to him than God. And now Ehrman is trying to get others to join him.

It seems to me that God working through humans and still accomplishing His Will is a more powerful God than Ehrmanâ??s God. The words themselves are not holy - but the words point to a God who is Holy, Holy, Holy.

What do you think? (Thanks for sharing the above passage.)

[Freedom in Truth]

I provided you with the list of scriptures Ehrman addressed so you could see for yourself "how many" and if they, in your understanding, "altered revelation." I thought I was just answering your question as helpfully as I could, but you seem to think I "keep giving you variants" and that I "do not hear you" when you say the variants do not concern you in any meaningful way? I can't recall "giving you variants" any other time, and I can't recall implying that you "do not accept them" or that they should alter your understanding of what the Bible's "revelation" is. Have you confused my posts with someone else's?

Maybe I feel overwhelmed with variants! But it is all good - none of them matter and I am just seeing this for myself.

However, of the thousands of variants, Erhman pointed out 40 - something. I'm going to assume he selected the ones he felt were most important - most crucial to supporting his position. But I found they didn't matter.

[Hammer]

Jude's book is "to those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ." Not everything has been revealed to us by God, and we do not have access to the information Jude was addressing in verse 9, but this does not mean that God has "secret information" He gives to a few select individuals (Gnosticism). Anyone can go "further up and further in".

What is important is what Jude is saying about the false teachers, not the specific information about the body of Moses.

It would be very dangerous to base a doctrine on just one verse, like verse 9.

Since every LDS is called and loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ, we already know many of the mysteries so we know He does have 'sacred' information only received by those worthy as His apostles of old.

We are taught by more than just Jude about false teachers, and I see many coming here to try and destroy the testimonies of active LDS.

The Book of Mormon many references here are just two.

2 Nephi 28;

W of M 1: 16

16 And after there had been afalse prophets, and false preachers and teachers among the people, and all these having been punished according to their crimes; and after there having been much contention and many dissensions away bunto the Lamanites, behold, it came to pass that king Benjamin, with the assistance of the holy cprophets who were among his peopleâ??

Timothy also has many warnings, as does many prophets in the OT. So what is your point?

Maybe I feel overwhelmed with variants! But it is all good - none of them matter and I am just seeing this for myself.

However, of the thousands of variants, Erhman pointed out 40 - something. I'm going to assume he selected the ones he felt were most important - most crucial to supporting his position. But I found they didn't matter.

You are like a jumping spider. Anytime someone gets something you can't handle because it is true, you jump to avoid it.

[Freedom in Truth]

QUOTE(Hammer @ Feb 22 2007, 08:03 PM)

Ask the Lord.

Because this has proven reliable in the past?

What is relaible to you, TCM? What do you believe?

[Freedom in Truth]

Has for me and mine.

It didn't work for JS ("ask the Lord"). Are you more in tune with God than JS was?

[Freedom in Truth]

QUOTE(Freedom in Truth @ Feb 23 2007, 03:00 PM)

â??The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding.â? (JST introduction on lds.org)

This could be interpreted as likening the JST as a restoration of the autographs. Couldn't find this phrase on lds.org. Could you provide the link, please? And I hasten to add that the contents of lds.org are probably not on par with canonized scripture, and that is what I had in mind when I asked you to provide "an authoritative statement, binding on the LDS, which would make the above views (JST not solely a restoration of the autographs) inconsistent with 'official' Mormon doctrine on the matter of the JST").

I'm working on a reply to your whole post (though it could be tomorrow at this point0 but I wanted to give you the link -

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/contents

[Freedom in Truth]

FYI: when posting specifically to me, you can dispense with all the jabs at the JST. I reject it as I do every other translation/version of the Bible.

You reject all versions of the Bible? Do you reject the BoM, the D&C, and the PoGP?

Though I must say I am perplexed by your use of this argument: the Bible contains errors (many of them), but even though you can accept it as a reliable, though errant, record of God's revelation, Mormons should view the JST as suspect because these same errors (which do not affect God's revelation at all, per you) persist? Given Mormons' view on the nature of scripture (ie: they ain't inerrant) and the nature of prophets (ie: they ain't infallible), it doesn't seem to me this is effective argument at all.

The Johannine Comma, which has been pointed out to me by Mormons as an addition supporting the Trinity, is a variant affecting Mormon revelation.

Maybe Mormons have a view not unlike yours: the errors of their scriptures do not affect their understanding of God's message/revelation? Or are only non-Mormon Chirstians afforded this privilege?

â??Maybe Mormons have a view not unlike yoursâ? - maybe. But I donâ??t believe any Mormon has ever said this to me. They tell me prophets are fallible, yet somehow they can know the correct things the prophet said and the incorrect things the prophet said. This in itself presents a problem. If they can sift through what the prophet said then they know more than the prophet! How is that?

Mormons also tell me scripture is not inerrant - yet they know exactly which scripture is true and which isnâ??t. How do they know? Again, they must know more than JS, their #1 prophet.

Mormons claim that JS came to give the world Godâ??s truth that the apostate church mucked up. Wasnâ??t that the whole point? So we â??mucked upâ? Christians look to see if JS did what he said he was supposed to do. If Mormons are going to claim that JS put things back in order, then we need to see that that was done. The JST is something we can examine, and it fails. So what was the point of God commanding JS to translate and print the JST?? Are Mormons being disobedient to God by not using it? Even if it is not perfect, wouldnâ??t it be BETTER than any other Bible?

[Zakuska]

Ah... but JS was only the begining of putting things back in order. Did you not see the David Withmer thread... In Which David Withmer said there was another Prophet coming that would complete the work JS started? Just in time for the second coming?

[structurecop]

You reject all versions of the Bible? Do you reject the BoM, the D&C, and the PoGP?

Even if it is not perfect, wouldnâ??t it be BETTER than any other Bible?

I don't believe TrashcanMan is any longer a believing members, so I would imagine he rejects them as well.

Among all current Bible translations, I prefer Metzger's NRSV with Apocrypha. I prefer it to the JST, KJV, and everything else. If someone can prove there is a better (read: more scholarly) translation at present I would consider prefering another translation. I hear the New Jerusalem version is good as well, but I trust Metzger's editing.

[Freedom in Truth]

QUOTE(Freedom in Truth @ Feb 23 2007, 04:07 PM)

My God does not change. Any â??newâ? revelation canâ??t present a different God. Your new revelation does present a different God - Mormons have explained this by saying that your God is not different, that He was just misrepresented in the â??alteredâ? Biblical text. However, there is no evidence that the text was altered in revelation. There is also no evidence that JS heard from God. And Ehrmanâ??s writings arenâ??t helping.

Hmm... 8 and 11 and whole congregations heard from God too. (Saw heavenly visions etc). And you call that no Evidence? Theres no Evidence that Stephen Saw Christ standing on the right hand of God either, besides Lukes writings.

I was speaking of Godâ??s character, who He is - this does not change. Godâ??s character does not change. Do Godâ??s actions change - what He does? Sure. Some of His â??daysâ? He spent creating the world, on another day He was leading His people out of Egypt, on another day He sent Jesus to us, on another day He watched His son die, etc. Itâ??s a relationship - a relationship that is alive. A parent sometimes plays with his child, teaches his child, soothes his child, disciplines his child, etc. Is the parent changing?

Mormonism has changed the character of God - who He is. Mormonism has changed who people are as well, and the relationship God has with us.

Whole Christian congregations have seen visions as well. Iâ??m sure other groups of people have too. Thatâ??s evidence that something happened, but not evidence that they were experiencing God. Weâ??re back to how do you know who youâ??re hearing from?

I said there was no evidence that JS heard from God, the God I know and the God I see in the Bible, because JSâ??s God is different in character. JSâ??s God has a different plan for humans as well. And JS canâ??t even be proved by showing that he restored the â??corruptedâ? Biblical text.

QUOTE Freedom in Truth

How many times does a prophet need to be right to be a true prophet? How many times can he be wrong?

Well... Jonah was wrong... Nineveh was not destroyed. Isaiah Said king hezekiah wa going to die and he lived an aditional 15 years.Ezekiel said Tyrus would be a blad rock forever. Didn't happen. Nathan said David would build the temple but then had to change his mind becuase God said it would be Solomon.

You didnâ??t answer my questions. Maybe it would be good to discuss the definition of â??prophetâ?. How do you define â??prophetâ??

I donâ??t believe Jonah was wrong. God was moved by Ninevehâ??s repentance and He had mercy on them. Later, Nineveh went back to their old ways and they were destroyed. I donâ??t believe Isaiah was wrong either. God was moved by Hezekiahâ??s prayers, had compassion, and gave Hezekiah 15 more years. As far as Tyre, this is what my footnote says in my Bible -

â??After a 15-year siege, Nebuchadnezzar could not conquer the part of Tyre located on the island . . . the prophecy predicted what would happen to the island settlement later during the conquests of Alexander the Great. Alexander threw the rubble of the mainland city into the sea until it made a bridge to the island. Then he marched across the bridge and destroyed the island (332 B.C.). Today the island city is still a pile of rubble.â?

Ezekiel said (26:3a) â??therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against youâ?

I donâ??t think Nathan heard God wrong - I think at first he didnâ??t ask God, he just assumed that since God was with David anything David had in mind would be good. ( 2 Samuel 7:3) Certainly a prophet can be wrong in their own thoughts. God quickly corrected Nathanâ??s thoughts though.

And speaking of Changes... Didn't the whole temple format change at the crucifiction of Christ?

Godâ??s character - who He is - once again didnâ??t change. And Truth didnâ??t change - the forgiveness of sin requires the shedding of blood.

Hebrews 9:22 - â??In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.â?

The sacrificial system was always a shadow of what was to come - Jesusâ?? final sacrifice. It was set up this way from the beginning. But the principle is the same and Godâ??s character is the same. And, the sacrificial system had many characteristics in common with Jesusâ?? final sacrifice - it was a â??shadowâ?, â??a poor reflection as in a mirrorâ?.

Now what I cant understand is Why God is making all these changes? I thought God said the Law of Moses was for ever.

My Bible says over and over - this is a â??lasting ordinanceâ?. â??Lastingâ? is the Hebrew word â??olamâ?. Though it is often translated â??everlastingâ? or â??foreverâ? it means â??for an indefinitely long periodâ?.

[Zakuska]

I donâ??t believe Jonah was wrong. God was moved by Ninevehâ??s repentance and He had mercy on them. Later, Nineveh went back to their old ways and they were destroyed. I donâ??t believe Isaiah was wrong either. God was moved by Hezekiahâ??s prayers, had compassion, and gave Hezekiah 15 more years. As far as Tyre, this is what my footnote says in my Bible -

But heres the Problem...

You have God saying in the OT that he doesn't change his decrees once he's made them (Num 23) But then you have him doing just that with Nineveh. Why the confusion?

“After a 15-year siege, Nebuchadnezzar could not conquer the part of Tyre located on the island . . . the prophecy predicted what would happen to the island settlement later during the conquests of Alexander the Great. Alexander threw the rubble of the mainland city into the sea until it made a bridge to the island. Then he marched across the bridge and destroyed the island (332 B.C.). Today the island city is still a pile of rubble.”

This is also false... heres the prophecy...

Ezekiel 26

1 And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste:

3 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.

5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

6 And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

7

[Freedom in Truth]

QUOTE(Freedom in Truth @ Feb 23 2007, 02:41 PM)

How many times does a prophet need to be right to be a true prophet?

Just once.

What is your definition of â??prophetâ? and â??prophecyâ?? Being right once does not indicate that someone heard from God.

QUOTE - Freedom in Truth

How many times can he be wrong?

No matter how many times a true prophet was, or is, or will be wrong, if he received a message from God, he did.

If someone truly heard from God once, then I would say they were given a prophecy. Being given one prophecy does not make then a prophet in my mind.

It seems from your point of view everyone is a prophet.

[Freedom in Truth]

Can a true prophet lie? I know of several in the Bible that did.

FIT, Can God Change his decrees?

I think I covered your questions in Post # 285. Let me know if I did not.

[structurecop]

My Bible says over and over - this is a â??lasting ordinanceâ?. â??Lastingâ? is the Hebrew word â??olamâ?. Though it is often translated â??everlastingâ? or â??foreverâ? it means â??for an indefinitely long periodâ?.

I don't think you want to open that can of worms. That throws into question the whole "eternal" God thing.

[Paul Ray]

I don't know that I've ever seen a consistent idea of WHAT scripture is and HOW we are to assess it as such. If anyone's got anything on that, please start a new thread and direct me to it.

Heh, you want me, or another human (pea-brain) to tell you WHAT scripture is and HOW to know?

Okay, I'll take a crack at it.

Scripture is that which man writes by inspiration from God, and to know what is scripture you simply need God to tell you, personally... and if anyone else (other than God) tries to tell you it isn't, you can summarily dismiss what they tell you.

If God tells you He inspired men to say or write down what He thought, would you believe someone else who told you that He didn't.

Who are you going to believe... Man or God?

There. How was that? I know what scripture is when God tells me what is.

[Zakuska]

It seems from your point of view everyone is a prophet.

Bingo!

Num 11

24

[Freedom in Truth]

Is there an authoritative statement, binding on the LDS, which would make the above views inconsistent with 'official' Mormon doctrine on the matter of the JST? (There may well be, I'm not asking rhetorically.)

JS was commanded by God to translate the Bible. He finished the work. God told him to print it. What was the purpose of this? Why was the work considered finished? Even if the work is not a complete restoration, would it be better to use than any other Bible?

Regardless of â??official Mormon doctrineâ? - does it make sense that JS followed Godâ??s command and finished the work - and you all donâ??t use it?

Do Mormons not use the JST because JS failed?

JSâ??s other works are called â??scriptureâ? by Mormons. Are they better quality than the JST? What if they are the same quality as the JST? If you had a way to confirm them would you not use them either?

[Paul Ray]

JS was commissioned by God to write the JST.

Yes.

The JST was revealed to JS by God.

In a manner of speaking, yes. Joseph had the priesthood so he could discern the mind of God, but God didn't tell him word for word what to write.

God instructed JS to print the JST so everyone could read it.

Yes, I believe so, in a sense. God wanted Joseph to translate the Bible with the inspiration God gave him, and make the translation available to the whole world.

Yet this is not important to you?

Sure it is. I can read the JST anytime I want to, and his writings help me draw closer to God.

Revelations from God are â??study aidsâ??

Revelations, to me, are God's word to me. Revelations to other people are study aids... OIOW, words to study while asking God for His guidance. I don't just believe people who say they are speaking for God.

How is it that some of JSâ??s revelations are crucial scripture and some are tossed aside?

Some of the revelations God gave through Joseph are more crucial to me, and other people, because the issues they bring up are more important, but none of the revelations God gave Joseph are being tossed aside anywhere, at least not by those who consider them to be important. The more crucial revelations are simply more important than some other ones, but I think all of God's revelations are for a very good purpose.

For example, one of the most important revelations, to me, concerns the need for personal revelation, to know what and how to tell what is scripture. God doesn't expect me to just believe others when they say they are speaking for God. I can ask God for personal revelation, for myself.

A less crucial revelation, at least to me, is the need to eat whole wheat bread, and vegetables. They're still important, but not as much as some other revelations from God.

JSâ??s revelation from God no more important than other good books?

Some are, and some aren't, to me, anyway... if you know what the good books truly are.

Is this the way you feel about all of JSâ??s revelations?

Kinda sorta. You were a little off, and I hope I made it more clear.

Whenever anyone says something, I ask God if it's true. I pray to God constantly for His understanding.

If anything I said is not clear, to you, feel free to ask me some more questions. I'd rather see you do that than assume you know what I mean.

[Freedom in Truth]

Wow - I have been trying to get on this board all week. I am at a different location this week and the ISP won't let me access this board . . . is that strange? Has anyone else ever heard of this problem? I finally am trying an anonymizer at the suggestion of a friend - I never heard of this before. I hope it works.

Anyway, I have missed you all. I hope to get some posts on today even though it is a busy day.

Sorry for the delay.

Freedom in Truth

[Freedom in Truth]

God doesn't change His principles, but He does give and take more and less to different ones. He gives according to needs and worthiness. He also changes application of principles. For instance we know He changed the sacrificing of animals when His Son was made the ultimate sacrifice.

Do you deny this?

God relates to us as we are - unique individuals. No one is more worthy than anyone else to receive Godâ??s blessings because no one is sinless. Pursuing a deeper relationship with God doesnâ??t mean you have more individual value.

This â??worthinessâ? is very important to you. Are you proud of being more worthy than others? How would you feel if you found out you werenâ??t - would you be devastated? Everyone is infinitely loved by God - how can someone be more infinitely loved than someone else?

I have already addressed the sacrificial system in another post - how it was a shadow of Jesusâ?? final and ultimate sacrifice. This ultimate sacrifice was planned from the beginning.

I definitely donâ??t agree with your first two sentences. As to your second two sentences, I would have to understand exactly how you think about the sacrifices to be able to comment on whether or not we agree.

[Freedom in Truth]

First of all, it's not my new revelation. I have received no revelation. I reject all 'revelation', I reject that there is a God who gives 'revelation'. But you believe the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament? The New Testament didn't alter understanding of him?

Call for sources.

You keep insisting that even though/if the Bible contains contradictions, errors, forgeries, additions, deletions, anachronisms, (shall I go on?) that its 'revelation' remains exactly as God gave it. This means nothing to me. Sounds to me like it just gives you an out any time a contradiction, error, forgery, addition, deletion, anachronism (shall I go on?) is pointed out to you.

If you're up to it, please start a new thread demonstrating God's 'revelation' in the Bible (wherever it may lie among all those contradictions, errors, forgeries, additions, deletions, anachronisms (shall I go on?)). Let's see how it holds up under closer examination.

As opposed to the mountains of evidence that Peter, John, Paul, Moses, Mohammad (oops, wrong mythology), Isaiah, etc heard from God? Please, thrill me with this 'evidence'.

But dang are they interesting!

Now I can't get the quote, italics, etc. to work!

Sorry TCM about assuming that you embrace certain beliefs. (Hopefully you received my messages?) Yes, I believe the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. I wouldnâ??t say that the NT altered understanding of God but I would say that Jesus corrected some misunderstandings of God. God was correctly revealed in the OT but the Jews as a group had misinterpreted some things. Jesus corrected their misinterpretations and even clarified some areas (like prophecies about himself) - but Jesus didnâ??t change anything. Jesus took that â??poor reflection in a mirrorâ? (1 Cor. 13:12) and made it a little better.

On "Call for sources" -

JS â??restored truthsâ? to the Bible. These â??restored truthsâ? present a different God (who He is, His character and nature) from the Traditional Christian understanding of God. Because these â??truthsâ? are supposed to be the original revelation (Mormon view) it follows that who I understand God to be is wrong and due to an altered text.

1 Nephi 13:28 â??Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.â? (also verses 26, 29)

â??The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written.â? http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/contents

Some examples of JSâ??s â??restored truthâ? affecting who God is -

â?? Ex. 33: 20, 23 No sinful man can see Godâ??s face and live.â? (same lds source as above)

D&C 130:22 â??The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as manâ??s . . .â?

I believe God canâ??t be seen - He is spirit, not flesh and bones. The Mormon view leads to their concept that God was once a man.

JST John 1:1 â??In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God. â??

KJV John 1:1 â??In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.â?

JSâ??s changes to John 1:1 affect the Trinity, which is a concept that describes God. This also leads to the Mormon concept of many gods, not one God.

Do you believe that Mormonismâ??s different view of God (who God is, character) is due not to corrected Biblical text but revelation beyond the Biblical text? Or is the Mormon view of God different because of both corrected Biblical text and new revelation (extra-Biblical)?

TCM - You keep insisting that even though/if the Bible contains contradictions, errors, forgeries, additions, deletions, anachronisms, (shall I go on?) that its 'revelation' remains exactly as God gave it. This means nothing to me. Sounds to me like it just gives you an out any time a contradiction, error, forgery, addition, deletion, anachronism (shall I go on?) is pointed out to you.

FIT - Iâ??m sorry you feel this way. I feel the same when you say â??not doctrinally bindingâ?.

TCM - If you're up to it, please start a new thread demonstrating God's 'revelation' in the Bible (wherever it may lie among all those contradictions, errors, forgeries, additions, deletions, anachronisms (shall I go on?)). Let's see how it holds up under closer examination.

FIT - You know me, TCM - I have little time for the computer with â??lifeâ? and I donâ??t like to start too many conversations and then not be able to finish them! But I hear you. We already started this on the other group (not on Mormon apologetics). And we can also do it here, but I would prefer to wait until this thread has run its course. Feel free to start a thread in a bit and I will see you there!

FIT - There is also no evidence that JS heard from God.

TCM - As opposed to the mountains of evidence that Peter, John, Paul, Moses, Mohammad (oops, wrong mythology), Isaiah, etc heard from God? Please, thrill me with this 'evidence'.

FIT - This statement was from my point of view. Since JS did not hear consistent revelation with Biblical revelation I donâ??t believe he heard from God. (If he did hear some from God he really mucked it up.) Some evidence that works for me I have already presented - consistent revelation from over 40 writers over about 1500 years . . . all that.

FIT - And Ehrmanâ??s writings arenâ??t helping.

TCM - But dang are they interesting!

FIT - Well, not much to me. I would rather spend my time going â??further up and further inâ?! I just feel really sad for Ehrman.

[Freedom in Truth]

Moses murdered. Is that worse than lying? According to Isaiah is an interesting one.

I donâ??t think murdering is worse than lying from Godâ??s point of view, but murdering is definitely worse from a human point of view! Did Moses have a relationship with God when he killed the Egyptian?

Isa. 6: 5-10

5

[TrashcanMan79]

I donâ??t think murdering is worse than lying from Godâ??s point of view

[Neighbor]

So what is the meaning of one who has and uses it to get more as a faithful servant, that to such a one more will be given? Or that of those who have, but that which they have will be taken away?

[Freedom in Truth]

Then why doesn't God destroy all the "evil" nations today? Where is the divine Commander-in-Chief, the angel of the Lord with sword in hand? And are all those innocent people -- undoubtedly infants and young kids included going to be saved too?

The God of the OT is not a being of moral superiority. He is a tribal deity possessing all the passions and desires of stereotypical ANE tribal deities.

God will eventually â??destroyâ? all evil (separate good and evil), but that time is apparently not yet. He permits evil because that is a consequence of giving us freedom of choice. I donâ??t believe infants are innocent - I believe everyone has the opportunity to make their choice. God knows what everyone is going to choose because God knows all. I believe that everyone stands before God and in that moment they have a heart response to Him - either they embrace Him or rebel.

Remember Genesis 18 when Abraham pleads for Sodom? (Genesis 18:20-33) Genesis 18:23-25 - â??Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thingâ??to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" The number got down to ten - Sodom was destroyed because there werenâ??t even ten righteous people in the city. However, Lotâ??s family was saved.

Remember Rahab in Jericho? She was saved with her family (Joshua 2 and 6). God does not destroy those who choose Him. God is moral and unlike any Canaanite god.

The archaeological evidence shows the Hebrews are most likely Canaanites anyway.

Abraham was from Ur of Chaldea. Were Chaldeans and Canaanites related? Yes - all descendants of Noahâ??s sons. Also, Jacobâ??s sons possibly married Canaanites. However, God separated out the Israelites for a purpose.

QUOTE - Freedom in Truth

Donâ??t you believe the â??apostate churchâ? will be annihilated (or whatever term you use) in the end times? Is your God loving?

No, Joseph Smith foresaw an ecumenical millenium composed of many churches.

1 Nephi 14:3 â??And that great pit, which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hellâ??yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end.â?

1 Nephi 14:10 â??And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.â?

D&C 29:21 â??And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign.â? (some other verses - 1 Nephi 22:14, 2 Nephi 10:16, D&C 88:94)

I see destruction for all those who do not bend their knee to Mormon beliefs.