How Can We Know When We Hear

[Freedom in Truth]

Difficult for me to answer, inasmuch as I doubt the existence of God and wholly reject that, if he exists, he speaks to man in such a way that he could be quoted. But even when I was a believer, deciding exactly what constituted scripture and what its exact nature is was something I never fully fleshed out in this pea brain of mine. 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.

Scripture is the writings of people who walked with God. They recorded, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what God said and did and what Jesus said and did. They recorded the history of Godâ??s people. They wrote to remember and to share with others their witness so others can have life in abundance (blessings, walking with God, joy, purpose, good things that come through obedience, comfort, encouragement, a way to know His voice, a way to â??test the spiritsâ?, etc.)

In a sense, scripture is Godâ??s love letter to you. God says something like â??This is who I am. I love you. Seek me. Walk with me. Follow me, and you will be free and your joy will be complete.â?

[Zakuska]

I donâ??t believe infants are innocent - I believe everyone has the opportunity to make their choice.

I agree with the latter but object to the former, other wise God is a respector of persons. Christ wiped out original sin at his ressurection. Now its every man for himself.

Rom. 9: 11

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Matt. 19: 14

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10: 14

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Luke 18: 16

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Ps. 127: 3

3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

This verse also throws a kink into Grace Alone Salvation.

John 5: 29

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

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

Intresting you didn't quote the Bibilical verse that Go along with that...

Rev. 19: 2.

2 For true and righteous are his ajudgments: for he hath bjudged the great cwhore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

Ezek. 38: 22.

22 And I will aplead against him with bpestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great chailstones, dfire, and brimstone.

Joel 1: 19 (19-20).

19 O LORD, to thee will I cry: for the afire hath devoured the pastures of the wilderness, and the flame hath burned all the trees of the field.

Joel 2: 3.

3 A fire adevoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of bEden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.

[Freedom in Truth]

Really. Put up at least references where these 100,000 significant changes could be examined to prove it made any difference in doctrine.

The above quote with reference is from a Mormon article. The number â??100,000â? was first brought up on this thread by Trashcan Man. I had used the number â??about 4,000â?. I never stated that there are â??100,000 significant changesâ? - I stated that researchers say â??about 4,000â?.

I notice you didn't have the *****s to answer this statement: Very dramatic. Now if we started a count on the revision made on the Bible in the NIV, and we aren't talking commas, we would really have significant numbers wouldn't we?

I think you are misunderstanding me. I never said there were 100,000 significant changes.

And these would be complete personalized interpretations of these scriptures. Why don't you complain or make negative statements about them?

We have discussed many variants on this thread. I have researched every one of them. They do not change revelation. However, I have posted changes in the BoM that in my opinion do affect revelation and change meaning.

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom in Truth:

From Jeff Lindsay

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

Critics of the Church have charged that the Book of Mormon is a fraud because thousands of changes have been made in it over the years, as if the Church were trying to cover up blunders in Joseph Smith's work. Certainly there have been many minor changes in the text of the Book of Mormon, as there have been in the text of the King James Version of the Bible (and other translations as well) over the years. These changes have been minor, usually trivial, primarily dealing with punctuation, correction of typographical errors, and modification of awkward grammar for clarity. I have examined the allegedly most "serious" changes pointed to by critics and have not seen anything representing a real change in doctrine or anything that would cast doubt on the origins of the Book of Mormon. I'll discuss major examples below.

In the early 1800s, spelling and grammar were not yet standardized. Joseph dictated the translation to scribes who spelled many words in ways that are nonstandard today. Hundreds of spelling variants had to be corrected in the first edition and in subsequent editions of the printed text. For example, "ware sorraful" in 1 Nephi 7:20 was changed to "were sorrowful." Likewise, we should not be outraged to find Nephi writing on "plates" today when Joseph's scribes had him writing on "plaits" in 1 Nephi 13:23. Hundreds of such changes have been necessary.

Years ago, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published a book claiming to identify 3,000 changes between the original 1830 edition and the then present version. Now I've heard the number of 4,000 mentioned in e-mail. Whatever the number, critics are trying to create the impression that the Church has something to hide about the Book of Mormon. The critics often charge that there is a great cover-up about the changes in the text compared to the original Book of Mormon, completely ignoring the fact that anybody can buy reprints of the 1830 edition from LDS bookstores and that LDS scholars freely and openly discuss and write about the nature of these changes. Changes in the text have been discussed in official Church publications like the Ensign magazine and by widely respected, private LDS groups like the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. The critics infer that the Church is embarrassed about the original Book of Mormon and has had to make changes in it to "improve" the doctrine or resolve blunders. Such arguments are truly dishonest. The driving force for virtually all changes has been to (1) ensure that the printed text is faithful to the original manuscript and (2) to ensure that the text is accessible and readable. Alleged departures from the original text generally turn out to be simple clarifications or reworkings of awkward grammar rather than doctrinal changes.

The many changes that critics are so indignant over are corrections of the very kind one would expect in putting a hand-written document into type with crude technology and under difficult circumstances - and in a time with many varying spelling practices. Many of the changes are due to the fact that the Book of Mormon was dictated to scribes without punctuation and without division between verses and chapter - just as one might expect from a fairly direct translation of an ancient Hebraic or Semitic text, written without punctuation. The lack of punctuation in the original required much work after dictation to put it in a presentable form - but that work was not done to cover up mistakes in the original and did not involve changing stories, doctrine, or anything else of substance. Numerous minor errors were printed in the original 1830 edition because of errors in preparing handwritten printer's manuscripts from the original manuscript, and because of additional printing errors. Again, many of the changes in the Book of Mormon over the years have been necessary to make the text correspond more perfectly with the original manuscript. It's simply untrue to say that the Church has departed from the original or that there were gross blunders in the original manuscript that needed to be fixed because they showed the Book to be a fraud.

In fact, many of the changes, including the need to add punctuation and chapter breaks, reflect the Semitic origins of the Book of Mormon. In several cases, sentences that showed classic Hebraic constructions and phrases made very poor English, and these needed modification to ensure readability. Many of the changes made involved deleting redundant "and it came to pass" phrases, a phrase which has also been deleted many times in the King James Version and other English translations of the Old Testament. Numerous deletions of "and it came to pass" in English translations of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are not because of any cover up on the part of the translators, but because that commonly used Semitic phrase becomes overly awkward in English. Below, I'll discuss other evidences of Hebraic origins in the required changes.

[Zakuska]

Hmmm... sounds just like the same difficulties they had bringing the Bible to the press.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/spell.htm

Good read on Bible Innerrancy...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran6.htm

[Freedom in Truth]

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.

I donâ??t believe there is sacred information â??secretâ? to some who are more â??worthyâ??. A relationship with God is available to all. If one knows God better than another that is because they devoted more time to God, not because they are more worthy. If you spend more time studying French and have a larger vocabulary than someone else, does that make you a better person? Are you more valuable as a person? Is the knowledge you have unavailable to all? No, no, no.

However, you donâ??t seem to think about relationship but about knowledge. Therefore you would be like the French student that has an extensive vocabulary and has read a lot of French books - yet you have no relationships with anyone French. Your French knowledge doesnâ??t make you less of a sinner, does it? Your French knowledge might mean that God chooses you to go to France and witness, but it doesnâ??t mean that you are more valuable to God than the high school drop out who gives his neighbor a ride to the doctorâ??s office. In fact, the high school drop out might love God more than you do.

1 Timothy 1:15 â??Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinnersâ??of whom I am the worst.â?

Paul feels he is the worst of sinners after all he has done? How do you explain that? I guess heâ??s out of the running for godhood.

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.

Yes, there are lots of warning about false prophets/teachers in the NT. How do you decide who is false and who is true?

If a testimony is based on Truth and a relationship with the True God it will not be destroyed. Truth can be tested, and there is no need to fear. If a testimony is based on feelings, then that is shaky ground indeed - feelings come and go.

What is your testimony grounded on?

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?

Iâ??m not sure Iâ??m following your thinking here. I was just saying that Judeâ??s warnings about false teachers are more important to us than what he was saying about the body of Moses.

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

Hammer, I researched each and every variant given. And I have admitted there are variants. And, I found that none of them change revelation.

[Freedom in Truth]

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?

No, I didnâ??t see that thread. May you find a firm foundation to stand on and have Godâ??s discernment as you watch for a new prophet.

What if the new prophet says he has come to share the new revelation that there is no possible godhood for people? What would you think?

[Hammer]

No, I didnâ??t see that thread. May you find a firm foundation to stand on and have Godâ??s discernment as you watch for a new prophet.

What if the new prophet says he has come to share the new revelation that there is no possible godhood for people? What would you think?

LOL. I would have ask for another book.

Edit to add: I would expect that that prophet would be strictly for teaching correct doctrine according to what had already been revealed. We all know how the same scriptures lead to many different interpretations. I would think this final prophet would be one preparing the way of the Lord's 2nd coming by defining and clearifying teachings already received, not to bring in more contraversy, but a way of unifying.

[Freedom in Truth]

QUOTE(Freedom in Truth @ Feb 27 2007, 01:51 PM)

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

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.

Iâ??m glad you use different translations. I donâ??t know if you know about www.biblegateway.com but they have a zillion different translations! I really like my interlinear Bible - it translates straight from Hebrew and Greek.

I do find it confusing that Mormons donâ??t seem to respect the JST.

LOL. I would have ask for another book.

I don't understand your sentence - could you retype it and clarify?

[TrashcanMan79]

I donâ??t believe infants are innocent

What are they guilty of?

[Freedom in Truth]

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?

Jonah 3:1-3a â??Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time: "Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you." Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh.â?

Jonah 3:10 â??When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.â?

Jonah 4:2b â??I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.â?

The text says Jonah obeyed God (chapter 3). A threat is a warning, not a decree. God warned Nineveh through Jonah. Jonah knew God would probably forgive Nineveh if they repented.

This is also false... heres the prophecy... [Ezek. 26]

I see nothing about Alexander the Great anywhere. Nor do I see the devastating destruction, Nor Nebachadnezers horse breaching the walls nor treading down all the streets, Nor carrying ANYTHING away fro Tyrus.

Verse 3 says â??many nationsâ?. More following -

Heres the "UN"-fuffillment... [Ezek. 29]

He did not get so much as a hair pin for his wages from tyrus. He never breached the walls nor tread down any streets.

A long siege is expensive.

â??The city of Tyre consisted of a mainland metropolis and a small Island that stood about half a mile offshore. . . . He [Nebuchadnezzar] attacked the mainland city and held it besieged for about thirteen years. He then marched into the city to find it nearly deserted. The Tyrians had abandoned the mainland and fortified themselves on the Island of Tyre. The mainland was over-run and defeated, and it was thrown down and left in ruins. The Island continued to be a mighty power in the Mediterranean until many years later.â?

â??Insular Tyre recovered partly, after seventy years (Is. 23:17,18), but again suffered under Alexander, then under Antigonus, and finally under the Saracens at the beginning of the fourteenth century A.D.â?

â??LeStrange quotes that the city was in ruins right until then, in 1321 A.D. and even to this day the ruins of Tyre can be seen.â?

â??Nothing but a small fishing village remains and the fishermen spread their nets their to dry or to fix. The once great city of Tyre is gone. Old Tyre was never rebuilt after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar; and there are now no traces left to mark its site. Now its harbours are choked with sand, precluding all hope of future restoration. â??Not one entire house is left, and only a few fishermen take shelter in the vaultsâ?? (Maundrell). The new city, when visited by Maundrell, Bruce, and other travellers, was literally â??a place for fishers to dry their nets onâ??.â?

â??Now Tyre â??cannot be foundâ?? or rather that which was the ancient city is no longer there. Instead, on the island of Tyre you will find a small fishing village that bears the name S

[Freedom in Truth]

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

Sure - open away! But I donâ??t think it throws into question the whole â??eternalâ? God thing.

[Freedom in Truth]

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.

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

That has been my question - if you just believe what you think you hear from God you are believing what a "man" has told you (that man being yourself). So how do you check and validate what you think you heard?

The Bible itself says it is inspired by God, but if you don't respect the Bible you aren't going to care what it proclaims about itself.

[Freedom in Truth]

QUOTE(Freedom in Truth @ Mar 3 2007, 05:04 PM)

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

I love that smily!! (Or is it smiley? Smilie?)

Do you believe sins are rated by God? Do you think there is some sort of scale where lying is barely sinful and murder is almost unforgivable?

[Zakuska]

Nice Tap Dance FIT...

Num 23

19 God is not a man, that he should alie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he cspoken, and shall he not make it good?

20 Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

Jonah 4: 2

2 And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and amerciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

Does God "Repent" (ie change his mind) or not?

[TrashcanMan79]

Do you believe sins are rated by God? Do you think there is some sort of scale where lying is barely sinful and murder is almost unforgivable?

If there is a god, and he is as bothered by lying as he is murder, then I would not look to him as a source of morality. Such a god would be underserving of worship, in my opinion. I would much rather be lied to than murdered. I would feel worse about murdering someone than just telling her no, she doesn't look fat in those jeans.

A god who does not distinguish between the two is not a god with whom I would have anything to do.

[consiglieri]

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

That has been my question - if you just believe what you think you hear from God you are believing what a "man" has told you (that man being yourself). So how do you check and validate what you think you heard?

The Bible itself says it is inspired by God, but if you don't respect the Bible you aren't going to care what it proclaims about itself.

But here is where your reasoning shows its circularity, FIT.

I tell you that I am inspired by God. Why don't you respect me by not caring what I proclaim about myself?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Paul Ray]

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

That has been my question - if you just believe what you think you hear from God you are believing what a "man" has told you (that man being yourself).

No, I am not just believing myself. I am believing what God has told me.

It's not my own voice in my head, or my own feelings that inspire me.

I know the difference between myself and another person.

So how do you check and validate what you think you heard?

I ask God.

The Bible itself says it is inspired by God, but if you don't respect the Bible you aren't going to care what it proclaims about itself.

I didn't care about the Bible until I knew God inspired it, or the people who wrote what's in that book.

I didn't just start believing the people who wrote it by thinking they were inspired and I should just believe what they said. And I also didn't believe it when other people told me it was inspired. I only believed it when I found out for myself... when I asked God and He then answered me, personally.

I suggest you ask God until God answers you, personally... and do not stop asking until He does.

This is pretty heavy stuff we are talking about, and you shouldn't just dismiss it casually.

[Freedom in Truth]

Bingo!

If you have been born of God you are a Prophet! If you cant prophesy... You may not be born of God.

Mormon definition of â??Prophetâ? (Bible Dictionary) - The work of a Hebrew prophet was to act as Godâ??s messenger and make known Godâ??s will. The message was usually prefaced with the words â??Thus saith Jehovah.â? He taught men about Godâ??s character, showing the full meaning of his dealings with Israel in the past. It was therefore part of the prophetic office to preserve and edit the records of the nationâ??s history; and such historical books as Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Sam., 1 and 2 Kings were known by the Jews as the former Prophets. It was also the prophetâ??s duty to denounce sin and foretell its punishment, and to redress, so far as he could, both public and private wrongs. He was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the Divine requirement. In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiahâ??s kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in Num. 11: 25-29; Rev. 19: 10.

What is a â??forthtellerâ?? Is this a word Mormons have invented? I couldnâ??t find it in a dictionary.

The above definition seems to include two definitions for â??prophetâ? - the Hebrew prophet and a â??prophetâ? in a general sense. Numbers 11 records a wish of Mosesâ??. Rev. 19:10 does not say that someone with a testimony of Jesus IS a prophet. Other verses say that believers will prophesy - I have no problem with this, but that doesnâ??t make them â??prophetsâ?.

There is a difference between someone who is a prophet and someone who prophesizes.

It seems that you have taken the specific definition of prophet and watered it down so all can be called prophets. Then, you interpret Biblical prophets as having given false prophecies so you can show that they were no different from Mormon prophets. This doesnâ??t work for me.

No it doesn't cover it. Becuase God says he will not change his decrees.

Num 23

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

20 Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

In Post #311 I discussed this further. Of course I donâ??t believe God changes his mind, but He does â??changeâ? His actions - at least this is what it can look like from our point of view. Our repentance, prayer, and perseverance can bring a â??changeâ? in Godâ??s actions. However, God has foreknowledge and is omniscient so He knows in advance what we will do and what He will do. Interesting - the above verse says God is not a man.

How do you interpret the following verses? Does God repent?

Exodus 32:9, 10 - â??And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.â?

Exodus 32:14 - â??And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.â?

Passages like this are hard to understand without a knowledge of Hebrew thought, language, literary devices (anthropopathism), etc. But if you read with a knowledge of Hebrew thought, etc., you donâ??t come up with faulty prophecies. You also don't come up with a God of flesh and bones that used to be a man. So - how does this fit with the Mormon concept that the early church corrupted the Biblical text? Did those Greeks mess with Hebrew thought, literary devices, idioms, etc.? They not only deleted â??plain and precious truthsâ? but somehow changed Hebrew thought?

[structurecop]

What is a â??forthtellerâ?? Is this a word Mormons have invented? I couldnâ??t find it in a dictionary.

Unfortunately it seems to mean that they process the information available to every one else and try to make a good guess at what is going to happen. Cf. Ezekiel 24-29.

[Paul Ray]

There is a difference between someone who is a prophet and someone who prophesizes.

I think the difference is in your own mind and the minds of others like you who don't know that God is now with us.

[Zakuska]

What is a â??forthtellerâ?? Is this a word Mormons have invented? I couldnâ??t find it in a dictionary.

The above definition seems to include two definitions for â??prophetâ? - the Hebrew prophet and a â??prophetâ? in a general sense. Numbers 11 records a wish of Mosesâ??. Rev. 19:10 does not say that someone with a testimony of Jesus IS a prophet. Other verses say that believers will prophesy - I have no problem with this, but that doesnâ??t make them â??prophetsâ?.

There is a difference between someone who is a prophet and someone who prophesizes.

Not according to Paul...

1 Cor. 14: 29, 32, 37

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Anyone who has the Gift of the Spirit is a Prophet. Moses' wish came true! DId you notice the "forthtelling" in verse 3? ("speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort")

It seems that you have taken the specific definition of prophet and watered it down so all can be called prophets. Then, you interpret Biblical prophets as having given false prophecies so you can show that they were no different from Mormon prophets. This doesnâ??t work for me.

Your problem isn't with Mormons but the Bible in general. Look at Jonah. A true prophet, and he disobeyed and blood lusted. Moses killed a man, Peter lied, and look at Paul.

In Post #311 I discussed this further. Of course I donâ??t believe God changes his mind, but He does â??changeâ? His actions - at least this is what it can look like from our point of view. Our repentance, prayer, and perseverance can bring a â??changeâ? in Godâ??s actions. However, God has foreknowledge and is omniscient so He knows in advance what we will do and what He will do. Interesting - the above verse says God is not a man.

How do you interpret the following verses? Does God repent?

Exodus 32:9, 10 - â??And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.â?

Exodus 32:14 - â??And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.â?

I fully believe God can and often does change his mind and his decrees. The God who could not change his decrees was the Babylonian God. Remeber what landed Daniel in the lions den? Our God is a living breathing being who can speek for himself... not one who's decrees are set in stone.

Passages like this are hard to understand without a knowledge of Hebrew thought, language, literary devices (anthropopathism), etc. But if you read with a knowledge of Hebrew thought, etc., you donâ??t come up with faulty prophecies.

Very true... the Hebrews are who beleived in a Corporeal God. The greeks disembodied him.

You also don't come up with a God of flesh and bones that used to be a man. So - how does this fit with the Mormon concept that the early church corrupted the Biblical text? Did those Greeks mess with Hebrew thought, literary devices, idioms, etc.? They not only deleted â??plain and precious truthsâ? but somehow changed Hebrew thought?

What... like Micheal Angelo?

[Paul Ray]

... as a rule a prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in Num. 11: 25-29; Rev. 19: 10.

What is a â??forthtellerâ?? Is this a word Mormons have invented? I couldnâ??t find it in a dictionary.

Whoever wrote that... God help him/them/us... was trying to convey the idea that a prophet sets forth the will of the Lord as it has been made known to him, the prophet... rather than someone who was say, for example, predicting the future.

For example, all the true prophets in the Old Testament... or those who wrote what is in it... taught that Jesus Christ would be coming to redeem us. For them it was a future event, but their intent wasn't to predict the future. Their intent was to teach that Jesus Christ would be coming to redeem us... to teach people about Jesus Christ. That is what prophets do. They try to teach other people about Jesus, with the spirit of Jesus to guide them and help them know who He is.

Here's another example. A prophet today would teach that Jesus has come, with the understanding of who He was and is. A false prophet is someone who teaches something that isn't true about Him.

A prophet is basically a teacher who teaches about Jesus Christ, while knowing Who He is, correctly, while being inspired to teach through the power of the Holy Ghost.

The above definition...

Let me try to make this point clear. The definition in our (LDS) Bible dictionary is true, but it doesn't include everything that can help a person know everything about what a true prophet of God is. It is simply a study aid to help us as we use the spirit of prophecy.

...two definitions for â??prophetâ? - the Hebrew prophet and a â??prophetâ? in a general sense. Numbers 11 records a wish of Mosesâ??. Rev. 19:10 does not say that someone with a testimony of Jesus IS a prophet. Other verses say that believers will prophesy - I have no problem with this, but that doesnâ??t make them â??prophetsâ?.

In your opinion, which I believe is false. I think you are teaching us something false about prophets.

It seems that you have taken the specific definition of prophet and watered it down so all can be called prophets. Then, you interpret Biblical prophets as having given false prophecies so you can show that they were no different from Mormon prophets. This doesnâ??t work for me.

Then what does work for you? How do you know when you are hearing from prophets?

What is a prophet, to you? Do you believe God inspires you to teach us? Why should we listen to you?

[Freedom in Truth]

FIT - JS was commissioned by God to write the JST.

Yes.

Why?

FIT - 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.

â??Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any other Bible translation in the world.â? (Introduction to the JST, lds.org)

â??He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as â??a branch of his callingâ? as a prophet.â? (Bible Dictionary under JST, lds.org)

"In consequence, at the command of the Lord and while acting under the spirit of revelation, the Prophet corrected, revised, altered, added to, and deleted from the King James Version of the Bible to form what is now commonly referred to as the Inspired Version of the Bibleâ?¦. The first 151 verses of the Old Testament, down to Genesis 6:13, are published as the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. But as restored by the Prophet the true rendition contains about 400 verses and a wealth of new doctrinal knowledge and historical data.... the marvelous flood of light and knowledge revealed through the Inspired Version of the Bible is one of the great evidences of the divine mission of Joseph Smith." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p. 383-84)

These are weighty statements, Paul. After reading these statements would you expect the LDS to not highly esteem the JST?

(Reveal means to uncover, make visible, make clear)

FIT - 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.

D&C 94:10 â??And again, verily I say unto you, the second lot on the south shall be dedicated unto me for the building of a house unto me, for the work of the printing of the translation of my scriptures, and all things whatsoever I shall command you.â? (1833)

D&C 104:58 â??And for this purpose I have commanded you to organize yourselves, even to print my words, the fulness of my scriptures, the revelations which I have given unto you, and which I shall, hereafter, from time to time give unto youâ?? â?? (1834)

D&C 124:89 â??If he will do my will let him from henceforth hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph, and with his interest support the cause of the poor, and publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth.â? (1841)

JS was commanded to print the JST over 8 years of revelation. I agree with your statement â??God wanted Joseph to translate the Bible with the inspiration God gave him, and make the translation available to the whole world.â? When did the LDS print the JST? Was it 1979? Did the church disobey God for over 100 years?

FIT - 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.

It does not seem to me that the LDS considers the JST important - they didnâ??t print it right away and they use the KJV instead. The LDS didn't make it available for you to read until recently.

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.

Are you saying that personal revelations you receive from God are Godâ??s word to you but personal revelations others receive are words for you to study while asking God for His guidance? â??I don't just believe people who say they are speaking for God.â? - agreed.

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.

I think I see what you are saying. Some parts of the Bible (for example) are going to be more important to you than other parts, at least for right now. But, the other parts may be important and used by God to speak through personally to you say, next year. And some part of the Bible may never be used to speak to you but be used for someone else. All the parts of the Bible are equally available to you, though.

On the other hand, the Mormon Quad includes the KJV Bible, the BoM, the D&C, and the PoGP. The JST is not included, so it must not be considered authoritative or inspired or sacred like the other works. It is a lesser work? How could it be?

LDS Bible Dictionary under Canon - â??A word of Greek origin, originally meaning â??a rod for testing straightness,â? - what does this mean to you?

FIT - 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.

FIT - 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.

Are your personal views/feelings representative of the LDS church?

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.

Thanks for your answers. I did ask some further questions. I try not to assume, but sometimes we think we understand but we donâ??t! Then, of course, we canâ??t ask questions!

[Zakuska]

JS was commanded to print the JST over 8 years of revelation. I agree with your statement â??God wanted Joseph to translate the Bible with the inspiration God gave him, and make the translation available to the whole world.â? When did the LDS print the JST? Was it 1979? Did the church disobey God for over 100 years?

Actually... since the Salt Lake Based Church doesn't own the Copy right it cant very well Print anything.

Yes bits and peaces are incorporated into the foot notes and appendecies of the Quad.

Which Gives us the original KJV as well as what Joseph ammeneded so we can see the changes for our selfs.

On the other hand, the Mormon Quad includes the KJV Bible, the BoM, the D&C, and the PoGP. The JST is not included, so it must not be considered authoritative or inspired or sacred like the other works. It is a lesser work? How could it be?

This is false... Parts of it are in the quad, and are considered Cannonical.

An Intro to the POGP.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/pgp/introduction

Selections from the Book of Moses. An extract from the book of Genesis of Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible, which he began in June 1830. See History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 98-101, 131-139.

Book of Moses

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

Joseph Smith Matthew

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_m/contents/summary

Other changes made to the NT... also in the quad, and footnoted for study.

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