From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: AR, ANSWERING ---------------------------------> Willard II
Date: 20 Dec 92 05:37:51 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>Article 42193 of talk.religion.misc:
>From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
>Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
>Subject: Re: Mormonism
>Summary: Unscientific Prophet
>Date: 16 Dec 92 12:31:48 GMT

>n article <20L002.N2fQt01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>>That "true prophet of God (the big man)" said that it [the sun] was
>>[inhabited]. The moon too!
>
>We have dwelt previously with Oliver Huntington's remarks and have shown
>that they were not even his recollections, rather the third hand remarks
>which he uncritically picked up from Philo Dribble in 1881.
>
>We have even shown that Oliver Huntington's recollection of his blessing
>at the hands of Joseph Smith's father was significantly in error. It
>turns out that Huntington (based on the blessing records) was actually
>blessed by his father.
>
>But most important, I once asked if a man could hold unscientific views
>and still be considered a prophet. In addition to the numerous examples
>of unscientific statements made in the bible, don't forget that the Lord
>set down the rules for determining clean and unclean animals in Lev 11.
>They are recorded as though God uttered these words. But after setting
>down the criteria in v 3-4, God (according to this passage) them makes
>a critical mistake"
>
>   v 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof;
>   it is unclean for you.
>
>Sorry, the rabbit does NOT chew the cud, and never has. Did God make a
>mistake? Did Moses attribute to the great creater an unscientific knowle
>Does that invalidate Moses' claim to be a prophet?
>
>If the criteria is that prophets must never make unscientific mistakes,
>then I feel very sorry for the state of your faith. Even Rev. J.R.
>Dummelow in his _One Volume Bible Commentary_ was not so quick to judge
>a prophet:
>
>  Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men
>  each with his own peculiarties of manner and disposition - each with
>  his own education or want of education - each with his own way of
>  looking at things - each influenced differently from another by the
>  different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration
>  did not involve a suspension of their natural faculities, it did not
>  even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into
>  machines - it left them men.
>
>  Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of
>  their contemporaries ... (p. cxxxv)
>
>I find anti-Mormon criteria for prophethood so restricted that I suspect
>that if a prophet from former times arose, they would be the first to
>stone him.
--
God did not make a mistake in the rabbit chewing his cud
however, I still haven't found an answer-- I'm still checking


The real question is not if anti-Mormons would stone him, but if Mormons
would.  If Brigham Young preached the same sermons today and carried out
the same actions today, the anti-Mormons wouldn't have time to stone him,
the Mormons would already have the job done.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc