From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Perfect Prophets?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:51:07 GMT
Keywords: unscientific, false prophecies, misuse of rhetoric

In article <1992Aug14.164928.6893@cbnews.cb.att.com>, wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
> 
> I am not so convinced that all relevant material on Joseph Smith is now
> conviently available. Just as libraries were burned and cities sacked in
> ancient times, so Far West and Nauvoo were sacked and valuable records
> destroyed. How valuable? Oliver Cowdery's early history of the Church
> which dated and described several critical events in the early church's
> history was in Far West before that county seat was destroyed by the
> Missouri Militia.  Where is it now Barry? Some important records were
> removed or taken away by individuals who left the church.

Yes Willard, I agree that some material was removed or destroyed at
Nauvoo, and some documentation was retained by the split church that
Utah does not have. There is an abundance left for everyone to go
over and determine for themselves. I can't imagine a document so 
critical to the faith of the LDS, that if it surfaced would once-and-
for-all settle the issue of Joseph-genuine-prophet-of-the-Lord, but
I can imagine some document surfacing that would cast more doubt.
> 
> The fact is that in 1846, when the Mormons were forced to leave Illinois,
> the historians attempted to collect all significant historical records
> possible. All the materials they finally collected could fit in two boxes!
> (see Dean C. Jessee's "The Writing of Joseph Smith's History" _BYU Studies_
> 11/4 [Summer, 1971]).

Thanks for the reference.
> 
> The printing press is indeed a blessing, but the majority of newspaper
> publishers had less concern with accuracy than with using their presses
> as an echo of their own opinions or simply passing on another rumor that
> happened to be printed in a neighboring paper. Case in point, there are
> many Newspaper articles dating from the mid 1830s to the mid 1840s
> announcing the sensational deaths of JS, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, etc.
> all well before their actual deaths.

I agree that any era will have an abundance of bigots who will generate
adequate amounts of hatred to confuse the best truth-seeker.
My mention of printing presses was to point out the easy proliferation
of the written word unlike the situation with ancient Israel. And the
fact that Joseph insisted his devotees keep diaries of everything that
occured in their lives, something that has shown itself to come back and
bite him at times. Many of the personal diaries survived where church
records did not far as I can tell.

> 
> Even if I ignore the fact that the Biblical record does not apply Deut
> 18:20 in the fashion that Barry would apply it, I am not so sure that
> his argument flys very well.

What do you suppose was meant by those words if not as a test of
a prophet speaking in Gods' name? I ask because I don't understand
how you are reading the words. I don't see any hint of "except for"
there. My use of "liar" in let every prophet be a liar, was perhaps
a bit strong. I should wish to back padal and stick with the passage.
I would modify that to "let every prophet be presumptuous then", if
they cannot convey the accuracy of a prophecy in His name. That is
more in tune with the passage.

> 
> In the first place, Ezekiel was living in Babylon among the first Jews
> exiled to that place in 597 BC. Records about his life would not have been
> destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked but would have been left intact (Since
> Babylon was never sacked before Ezekiel's writings were widely distributed).
> 
> Second, Ezekiel has the distinction of not being among the "oral tradition"
> type of prophet, rather he is clearly in the "written tradition" with others
> like Isaiah. Any simplistic study of Ezekiel shows that his writing is *well*
> structured, poetic, and symemetrical. To have removed significant condition
> phrases out of his writings would have resulted in some detectable hole.
> 
> Third, Ezekiel is much closer to the creation of LXX then say someone like
> Isaiah. The inclusion of Ezekiel's writings among the significant writings
> of the Jews, by the time of Alexander the Great, shows how well respected
> his writings were and probably how accurate they were considered.
> 
> Remember Barry, although Ezekiel is seperated from us by several thousand
> years, he was not so distantly seperated from the individuals who compiled
> the LXX. His "false" prophecy would have been realized by then, and yet the
> the ancient Jews left it among his writings without notations of any type.
> The only explanation that I can see is that the ancient Jews did not apply
> Deut 18:20 in the same childlike (Barry's word) manner.

Actually Willard, you are well aware my "childlike" characterization
was in direct response to your more "adult" approach to Deut. 18-20-22
remember? Back to Ezekiel. 
That is one possibility Willard, or they could have been desensitized
or forgetful of the guide. See you or I can't say for sure.
> 
> There is one last problem that needs to be addressed: Barry's attempt to
> go around the problem of Deut 13:1-4 rule (not Jeremiah 28:9, Barry). The
> problem is that to a Jew, the advent of Christ and the new description
> of God that came from his followers would have meant that the Jews could
> technically reject Christianity as a violation of this passage. In fact
> technically anyone who accepted Deut 13:1-4 as scripture could technically
> reject the description of God as formulated by the orthodox Christians as
> coming from "False Prophets."
> 

Jesus makes plain that he knew the Jews would reject him. Also most
everyone will agree that "trinity" was not a topic with the Jews in
Jesus's time. What was it that caused the rejection? Theyt expected
a deliverer Messiah, but they soon found they had a lamb, very
disappointing.

> Attempts to use some form of "dispensationalism" to go around the problem
> are actually no solution at all. Any Jew will listen and say, "This form
> of dispensationalism is a Christian Concept, not Jewish." In essence, anyone

As told by Jesus himself, he expected the action. The Jews were only
reacting to what they believed of their teachers.

> not proclaiming the same strict monothestic God as Moses is a False Prophet!

As I said, trinity was not a point of contention, unless you agree
that the Jews recognized Jesus as claiming he was Yahweh incarnate.
If they believed that, then Yes, he was a false prophet in their 
determination.

> The only ones who claim that the priests of Jehovah lost sight of who and
> what they were worshipping are the Christians, not the Jews. :-)

No Willard, Jesus rebuked the teachers for not recognizing him:-)
And dispensationalism has much to do with what we are talking about,
even if you wish to blow it away as meaningless. If you were a strict
Jew Willard, I would not be compelled to argue with you.

barry--