From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Perfect Prophets?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:11:23 GMT
Keywords: unscientific, false prophecies, misuse of rhetoric

In article <1992Aug17.131134.28197@cbnews.cb.att.com>, wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
> 
> 
> Any document For or Against Joseph Smith should never be taken at face
> value. The document has to undergo a process of lower and upper criticism.

The LDS first presidency and the quorum learned a hard lesson, thanks
to Mr. Hoffman:-)

> 
> Arthur Johnson's remarks on Sola Scripture sent me back to a number of
> theological studies and handbooks published by members of the Dallas
> Theological Seminary to examine the ramifications of Barry's arguments
> wherein he claims that portions of Ezekiel could have been destroyed
> or that his writings were incomplete thus creating only an illusion that
> Ezekiel's prophecy failed.

I can use the bible as a guide and an anchor from shifting religious
sands as in post-nt prophets who claim to speak for god, and how many
are there(i might ask myself), I haven't been keeping track. The prophets
are confused except the one I follow(seems to be the standard answer).
Rev Moon, Joseph S, Baha'u'llah, Mary Baker? Depending on which prophet
one is following depends on which one is true:-) I can't accept that,
but Willard might need to unless he can point out why his prophet is
the real prophet and the others are confused:-)

> 
> To do this, essentially Barry is rejecting Biblical Inerrancy. He is stating
> that the Bible teaches (indirectly) something false. That is, Deut 18:20
> teaches a hard and fast rule, but then also teaches that Ezekiel made a
> false prophecy because something got left out, but then declares that
> Ezekiel is a true prophet of God.

I never claimed to be a biblical inerrantist. My responses to you
should have indicated that.
The matter is very confusing, that much I can admit.

> 
> If that is the road that Barry wants to travel, fine, but it also leaves
> open the possiblity that Deut 18:20 is also a corrupt text: that something
> also go left out, and that the hard and fast rule is false. Acting as
> Devil's advocate let me point out a few arguments in support of this view:

Yes it is possible. I'll stick to Deut 18:20-22 and let the cards
fall where they may. To accept otherwise is to lift anchor and
drift wherever. If the prophet cannot utter what god impresses on
them to say, I'll have to think they are not to be taken too
seriously. That doesn't bother me.
> 
> IMHO, the safest course for Barry is to admit that Deut 18:20 was not a hard
> and fast rule, because Biblical evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

*Some* biblical evidence "seems to indicate...". 
Anyway, if I were in the inerrantist camp, I might need to bend
on that point, but then I would need to bend on a whole bunch of
points:-) The truth is [imo] tradition and sola have their own
problems and can facilitate some fantastic intellectual gymnastics.
The theology of Joseph Smith has produced some amazing gymnasts too
just to make that clear:-)
Now about no more prophets coming after Jesus. Should we tackle
that one next?

barry--