Does God Know When We Will Die?

[William Jones]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You ought to read (or reread) Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling.  He points out that Joseph Smith had a temper and could hold a grudge.  You say that Joseph lied because a prophecy didn't come true.  You are still playing the infallibility game, and that is dirty pool.  Why?  Because all men make errors, and it is a main point of LDS theology that humans make mistakes.  And that includes prophets.

The late David Noel Freedman (a prominent non-Mormon scholar) made a special point of the biblical prophecies which didn't come to pass.  How can a biblical prophet make a mistake?  He didn't address that question, but he took it as fact that they made false prophecies.  He used that fact as a point in favor of the authenticity of the Bible.  What other sort of literature directly accepts the fallibility of its prophets?  You're not asking the right questions, Johnnie.

If a prophet claims a statement is a prophecy and it clearly doesn't come to pass, then can't one assume that the person claiming to be a prophet isn't really a prophet at all? Further, if this "prophet" later gets something right, can't we assume that it was luck, because of the prior mistake? If prophets are fallible, then how can one trust them? Why bother? It seems to me that "prophet" must mean infallibility or you cannot call yourself a prophet. You simply cannot claim prophetic powers and then fail in prophetic claims.

Edited April 21, 2017 by William Jones

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, William Jones said:

It seems to me that "prophet" must mean infallibility or you cannot call yourself a prophet.

Really? So if someone predicted next week's Down Jones stock market for all the listed entries except two or three you'd say he had no prophetic ability? I'm really skeptical about that. How could they have known?

Further, it must be asked whether prophets claimed infallibility. Brigham Young said, "can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken? Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right." 

Joseph famously said a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. 

So demanding infallibility seems inherently problematic.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, William Jones said:

If a prophet claims a statement is a prophecy and it clearly doesn't come to pass, then can't one assume that the person claiming to be a prophet isn't really a prophet at all? 

No, one can't.

All that can be said is that that particular prophecy was not fulfilled.  Prophecy is not a crystal ball.  Not all prophesies come from a vision of the future.

Prophecy does not remove agency of man, it does not preclude God from making adjustments due to the actions of man, and it does not prevent God from revoking a prior command.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, William Jones said:

It seems to me that "prophet" must mean infallibility or you cannot call yourself a prophet.

Based on what?

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I appreciate the effort thx. Does it convince me not really...kind of the type of things one would say at a funeral 

I didn't expect a subtle allusion subject to interpretation would convince you.

When your starting point is skepticism instead of faith nothing short of a video of their conversation is likely to AND it still likely wouldn't increase your belief in D&C 114.  A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

[William Jones]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Really? So if someone predicted next week's Down Jones stock market for all the listed entries except two or three you'd say he had no prophetic ability? I'm really skeptical about that. How could they have known?

Further, it must be asked whether prophets claimed infallibility. Brigham Young said, "can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken? Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right." 

Joseph famously said a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. 

So demanding infallibility seems inherently problematic.

I mean infallible when they are supposedly acting or at least claiming to be acting as a prophet. If I claim to be a prophet and say something will happen and it doesn't, then what kind of prophet am I? A false one, right?

Anyway, when are prophets acting as such? Why won't they tell us when this is happening? Why do they need the wiggle room of silence as to when they are using their powers if they are truly speaking for God?

 

[William Jones]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No, one can't.

All that can be said is that that particular prophecy was not fulfilled.  Prophecy is not a crystal ball.  Not all prophesies come from a vision of the future.

Prophecy does not remove agency of man, it does not preclude God from making adjustments due to the actions of man, and it does not prevent God from revoking a prior command.

I think the charletan would like this definition because he/she could always blame the adherents or something other than himself/herself for the failed prophecy.

[William Jones]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Based on what?

When the prophet is acting as such, we must be able to trust him/her implicitly because the implication is that God is directing the action when the prophet is acting as such.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, William Jones said:

If a prophet claims a statement is a prophecy and it clearly doesn't come to pass, then can't one assume that the person claiming to be a prophet isn't really a prophet at all? Further, if this "prophet" later gets something right, can't we assume that it was luck, because of the prior mistake? If prophets are fallible, then how can one trust them? Why bother? It seems to me that "prophet" must mean infallibility or you cannot call yourself a prophet. You simply cannot claim prophetic powers and then fail in prophetic claims.

Sounds like good, sound Roman Catholic theology.  After all, they have an official position that the Pope cannot err in certain cases.  LDS theology takes no such position.  The notion of infallibility is heresy -- both biblically and in Mormonism.  You might want to read the Prophets (one of the three sections of the Hebrew Bible) with care, and ask whether they exhibit infallibility.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

............................................................... for clarification are you suggesting that this was a false prophecy?

Which prophecy would that be?

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, William Jones said:

When the prophet is acting as such, we must be able to trust him/her implicitly because the implication is that God is directing the action when the prophet is acting as such.

Or perhaps we could apply a small amount of common sense to these things and recognize that people are able to act independently.
Cause and effect is a principle of the gospel as much as anything else.

[William Jones]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like good, sound Roman Catholic theology.  After all, they have an official position that the Pope cannot err in certain cases.  LDS theology takes no such position.  The notion of infallibility is heresy -- both biblically and in Mormonism.  You might want to read the Prophets (one of the three sections of the Hebrew Bible) with care, and ask whether they exhibit infallibility.

I guess let me put it this way: would you agree that God is infallible? If so, if He tells something to his prophet and the prophet relates the God given message to the people, couldn't we say the message is infallible? Also, can't we assume that the infallible God is an infallible communicator? Sure humans are imperfect and not God, but God is perfect, right? So can't we assume that a perfect being will perfectly communicate His perfect message perfectly to his imperfect prophet?

If there is a communication problem, wouldn't a better system be having God communicate his perfect message to a wide audience all at once so there is less chance of imperfect communication?

Edited April 21, 2017 by William Jones

[William Jones]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Or perhaps we could apply a small amount of common sense to these things and recognize that people are able to act independently.
Cause and effect is a principle of the gospel as much as anything else.

We are imperfect but God is perfect. So the perfect God should be able to perfectly communicate his perfect message to his imperfect children, right? So, doesn't it follow that when the prophet is acting as such, the message he gets should be considered infallible? If not why not? And if not, shouldn't a perfect God change his communication methods? Maybe the prophet system isn't correct?

[rodheadlee]

32 minutes ago, William Jones said:

I guess let me put it this way: would you agree that God is infallible? If so, if He tells something to his prophet and the prophet relates the God given message to the people, couldn't we say the message is infallible? Also, can't we assume that the infallible God is an infallible communicator? Sure humans are imperfect and not God, but God is perfect, right? So can't we assume that a perfect being will perfectly communicate His perfect message perfectly to his imperfect prophet?

If there is a communication problem, wouldn't a better system be having God communicate his perfect message to a wide audience all at once so there is less chance of imperfect communication?

You mean like the Holy Spirit? Which confirms the truth of things to those who ask? Tune your Holy Spirit receiver to the correct channel. 

[William Jones]

7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

You mean like the Holy Spirit? Which confirms the truth of things to those who ask? Tune your Holy Spirit receiver to the correct channel. 

That's another question I have.  If there is a correct channel, why so much confusion among the population?  Again this comes back to God, right?  He is supposedly perfect but can't communicate very well.

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I didn't expect a subtle allusion subject to interpretation would convince you.

When your starting point is skepticism instead of faith nothing short of a video of their conversation is likely to AND it still likely wouldn't increase your belief in D&C 114.  A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I'm merely holding your claim to the same standard of evidence I would hope that you would hold me to...nothing more , nothing less

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

which prophecy would that be?

The prophecy I thought we were all talking about,  Section 114 calling David Patton on a mission which he failed to serve due to his untimely death

Edited April 21, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, William Jones said:

We are imperfect but God is perfect. So the perfect God should be able to perfectly communicate his perfect message to his imperfect children, right? So, doesn't it follow that when the prophet is acting as such, the message he gets should be considered infallible? If not why not? And if not, shouldn't a perfect God change his communication methods? Maybe the prophet system isn't correct?

Why don't you try communicating Algebra to a 3 year old.  You may be perfect in you ability to apply the quadratic equation, but they still aren't going to get it.

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The prophecy I thought we were all talking about,  Section 114 calling David Patton on a mission which he failed to serve due to his untimely death

D&C 114 wasn't a prophecy.
You may be able to call it a commandment, but people don't keep those all the time.
 

• 1 Verily thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world.

No prophecy.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm merely holding your claim to the same standard of evidence I would hope that you would hold me to...nothing more , nothing less

I think it's pretty established that I take much more on faith and less on evidence.  You hold people to a higher standard of evidence when discussing matters of faith than a believer would.  And that is absolutely your right.

But those who seek conclusive evidence in matters of faith will never find it.  Faith matters only use the "evidence of things not seen."

Edited April 21, 2017 by JLHPROF

[William Jones]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why don't you try communicating Algebra to a 3 year old.  You may be perfect in you ability to apply the quadratic equation, but they still aren't going to get it.

So why does God try to do the very same thing? Maybe, if He were a better communicator, we would be talking about colors and shapes, you know, stuff that us 3 yr olds can understand?  Instead, due to His lousy communication skills, we have to muddle around the confusing policy/doctrine debates or whether or not something is revelation or man speaking as a man.

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think it's pretty established that I take much more on faith and less on evidence.  You hold people to a higher standard of evidence when discussing matters of faith than a believer would.  And that is absolutely your right.

But those who seek conclusive evidence in matters of faith will never find it.  Faith matters only use the "evidence of things not seen."

But if evidence has been made known....why does one hold onto faith of that particular thing?

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, William Jones said:

So why does God try to do the very same thing? Maybe, if He were a better communicator, we would be talking about colors and shapes, you know, stuff that us 3 yr olds can understand?  Instead, due to His lousy communication skills, we have to muddle around the confusing policy/doctrine debates or whether or not something is revelation or man speaking as a man.

That's exactly what he does.
He gives us the colors and shapes (believe in Jesus, ask forgiveness, get baptized).
Then he moves on to reading and writing.
Eternal progression is wonderful.  But it takes US time to get there.  People are still questioning very clear revelations, and the more complex can take us a lifetime to understand (temple ordinances for instance).

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

But if evidence has been made known....why does one hold onto faith of that particular thing?

Because evidence is misinterpreted all the time.  (Although so do revelations from God I'll admit).
All we can do is do our best and trust God.

 

[thesometimesaint]

Because using colors and shapes doesn't apply to the quadratic equation. Even the great Sir Issac Newton was at a lose to explain the multi-gravitational effects of three body objects like our solar system.