False Prophesies of LDS Prophets

[TexanKnight]

Specific biblical examples

Be careful in how you apply Deut. 18:22, for you threaten to reject some true prophets in the Bible! There are several examples in the Bible where a true prophet prophesied something which did not happen as he stated.

Jonah

Perhaps the clearest example is found in the story of Jonah, who was told by God to prophecy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah eventually did what he was told and prophesied the simple clear prophecy that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4). The time frame was clear and no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. The scriptures state explicitly, however, that the people repented of their sins and that God changed his mind, sparing the city.

Jonah was “displeased … exceedingly” and “very angry” (Jonah 4:1) about God’s decision, perhaps because it made Jonah look bad. In spite of what might look like an “incorrect” prophecy, and in spite of Jonah’s obvious shortcomings, he was clearly a prophet of God, delivering the precise message that God had given him, but it was ultimately the conditional nature of prophecy that determined the outcome.

Ezekiel

The prophet Ezekiel provides another example of how true prophets may prophesy things that do not happen exactly as one might expect. In Ezekiel chapters 26, 27, and 28, we read that Tyre (a fortified island city) would be conquered, destroyed, and plundered by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The riches of Tyre, it was stated, would go to Babylon (Ezekiel 26:12). Nebuchadnezzar’s army did lay siege to Tyre, and its inhabitants were afflicted, apparently so much that they shaved their heads bald, exactly as prophesied in Ezekiel 27:31.

However, the 13-year Babylonian siege apparently was not quite as successful as Ezekiel had predicted, perhaps because the land-based tactics of Babylonian sieges were less effective against a fortified island city with significant maritime power. The result of the siege may have been a compromise or treaty rather than total destruction and plunder, for (Ezekiel 29:17-20) reports that the predicted plundering did not take place. Almost as if in compensation, the Lord now announces that He will give Egypt to the Babylonians, which is the theme of chapter 29 (Ezekiel 29:17-20):

17 And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:

19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.

20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD. (emphasis added)
Tyre is no more, but its complete destruction did not occur during the Babylonian siege, and the Babylonian army did not get the riches of Tyre as has been prophesied. It is Ezekiel himself who reports this "prophetic failure.

The purpose in raising this example is not to question the wisdom of the Lord, nor the truthfulness of the Bible, but to point out that an overly critical attitude and a black-and-white application of Deut. 18:22 may reject even true, Biblical prophets. If we try hard enough to find reasons to reject a prophet, we will surely succeed, but we must beware lest we judge unwisely and reject those whom God has sent and anointed.

Jeremiah

Another example to consider is the prophet Jeremiah—a great and inspired prophet—who prophesied that king Zedekiah would “die in peace” (Jeremiah 34:4-5). Critics could argue that this prophecy did not prove to be true, for Zedekiah saw his sons killed by the conquering Babylonians and was himself blinded and put in prison, where he died in captivity—not in peace (Jeremiah 52:10-11). Of course, the point is that he would not be killed by the sword, but die of natural causes—albeit in prison—yet to the critics, it may look like a case of a false prophecy. This case is certainly less clear-cut than the prophecy of Ezekiel discussed above, yet also serves to warn us against harsh judgments.

Nathan

Other examples include Nathan:

In 2 Samuel 7:5-17, we read that the prophet Nathan unequivocally prophesied to David that through his son Solomon the Davidic empire would be established “forever,” that the children of Israel would dwell in the promised land “and move no more,” and that the “children of wickedness” would no longer afflict them. These things are quite clearly stated. No conditions are attached to these promises, none whatsoever.

Yet this prophecy, interpreted literally, clearly did not prove successful. Again human sin or choice will affect whether God will choose to bless or punish a people. This is implicit in all such prophecies.

en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Prophecies/The_prophetic_test_in_Deuteronomy_18

Yawn…

I ignored everything after your "I can’t think for myself, so I will cut paste and I will ignore how silly it is to compare the ANCIENT Bible to the current lds “prophets”

 

[evanfaust]

The Coming of the Lord
President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. . . . it was the will of God that they should be ordained to the ministry and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh - even fifty six years should wind up the scene. (History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 182).

He is the full explanation of this so called “prophecy”.

One **opinion **held by Joseph Smith, frequently cited by critics, is that the Lord would come in 1890 (e.g., History of the Church 2:182). That this was, in fact, his feeling, is clearly indicated by the number of references he made to it. Joseph’s statements on this subject were made in reaction to Adventist prophecies that Christ would come in the 1840s ( History of the Church 5:272, 290-291, 326, 337).

Joseph reported that he had once prayed to know the time of the Lord’s coming, and had been told, “My son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man.” But Joseph was careful to add, “I was left to draw my own conclusions concerning this; and I took the liberty to conclude that if I did live to that time, He would make His appearance. But I do not say whether He will make His appearance or I shall go where He is” ( History of the Church 5:324, 337; D&C 130:14-17).

Since Joseph did not live to the age of 85, the “if” portion of the Lord’s statement to him clearly shows that it was conditional. Moreover, Joseph was not told that the Lord would return in glory in 1890, only that he would see him at that time if he was yet alive. In other words, the Lord did not answer Joseph’s question directly, for the very reason that no one knows the time of his coming–not even Joseph Smith or the angels of heaven (Matthew 24:36).

One might enquire about the likelihood that the Lord would “trick” Joseph Smith thus, making him think that he would see the Lord in 1890 when, in fact, the Lord knew Joseph would die in 1844. The question is mooted by a similar situation in the Bible. Isaiah came to King Ahaz in the name of the Lord and told him that Ephraim (head of the northern kingdom of Israel) would be broken “within threescore and five years” (Isaiah 7:8). Ahaz reigned in Judah from 734 to 728 B.C. Sixty-five years later would be 689-663 B.C. In actual fact, however, Israel was taken captive in 722 B.C., just six years after Ahaz’s death, when his son Hezekiah was king of Judah.

Joseph **made an assumption **based on what the Lord told him, but it was only an assumption, and it was unwarranted. But this assumption guided some of his other declarations. This does not make him a false prophet, only a mortal who–like the rest of us–often let preconceived notions govern his thoughts. He was perfectly willing (and able) to change direction when the Lord contradicted any of his preconceptions.

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/the-nature-of-prophets-and-prophecy-2

 

[TexanKnight]

He is the full explanation of this so called “prophecy”.

One **opinion **held by Joseph Smith, frequently cited by critics, is that the Lord would come in 1890 (e.g., History of the Church 2:182). That this was, in fact, his feeling, is clearly indicated by the number of references he made to it. Joseph’s statements on this subject were made in reaction to Adventist prophecies that Christ would come in the 1840s ( History of the Church 5:272, 290-291, 326, 337).

Joseph reported that he had once prayed to know the time of the Lord’s coming, and had been told, “My son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man.” But Joseph was careful to add, “I was left to draw my own conclusions concerning this; and I took the liberty to conclude that if I did live to that time, He would make His appearance. But I do not say whether He will make His appearance or I shall go where He is” ( History of the Church 5:324, 337; D&C 130:14-17).

Since Joseph did not live to the age of 85, the “if” portion of the Lord’s statement to him clearly shows that it was conditional. Moreover, Joseph was not told that the Lord would return in glory in 1890, only that he would see him at that time if he was yet alive. In other words, the Lord did not answer Joseph’s question directly, for the very reason that no one knows the time of his coming–not even Joseph Smith or the angels of heaven (Matthew 24:36).

One might enquire about the likelihood that the Lord would “trick” Joseph Smith thus, making him think that he would see the Lord in 1890 when, in fact, the Lord knew Joseph would die in 1844. The question is mooted by a similar situation in the Bible. Isaiah came to King Ahaz in the name of the Lord and told him that Ephraim (head of the northern kingdom of Israel) would be broken “within threescore and five years” (Isaiah 7:8). Ahaz reigned in Judah from 734 to 728 B.C. Sixty-five years later would be 689-663 B.C. In actual fact, however, Israel was taken captive in 722 B.C., just six years after Ahaz’s death, when his son Hezekiah was king of Judah.

Joseph **made an assumption **based on what the Lord told him, but it was only an assumption, and it was unwarranted. But this assumption guided some of his other declarations. This does not make him a false prophet, only a mortal who–like the rest of us–often let preconceived notions govern his thoughts. He was perfectly willing (and able) to change direction when the Lord contradicted any of his preconceptions.

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/the-nature-of-prophets-and-prophecy-2

So, you failed the challenge. I said in your own words, but you do not have any. All you can do is cut and paste. That proves what we have said…you do not know your own Church.

But your cut and paste is very weak. It actually proves that js was a false prophet. he made the prophesy…it failed…and all your cut and pastes will not change it.

 

[evanfaust]

David W. Patten to go on a mission
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 the world. (Doctrine & Covenants 114:1)
This prophecy was made on April 17, 1838. David W. Patten died in October of 1838 and thus never went on a mission the following spring.

You accuse me of copy and paste…that only means that the answer is out there available for anyone to see. I read your question and I found the answer…the answer is ready. I don’t even have to add anything to it. It makes sense to me and I accept the answer…You may accept or reject it…and of course I doubt that any answer would please you. You are already pre determined to reject whatever anyone says to the contrary.

Here is one more answer to the so called prophecy…in this case it is just a mission call.

D & C 114 was not a prophecy, it was a mission call. Joseph Smith, under the inspiration of the Lord, issued a call for David Patten to go on a mission the following spring. This call by revelation is not a prophecy that David would serve a mission, but an admonition to set all his affairs in order so that he may perform a mission. Although Patten was killed, his affairs were in order when he died so that his family could endure his absence. This alone indicates the Lord’s foreknowledge of Patten’s death. And who knows but that Patten served that mission call on the other side of the veil?

In any event, Patten’s death would not change the instructional nature of that call. Joseph Smith declared that: To the “great Jehovah . . . the past, present, and future were and are, with Him, one eternal ‘now’.”[2] The Savior does know all that will happen to us individually, but he still gives agency to us and to others who impact on our lives, which usage often precludes what would have happened if the Lord’s will were done on earth as it is in heaven.

There are several Biblical parallels to David Patten’s mission call, such as the calling of Judas as an Apostle. As one of the Twelve Apostles, Judas was promised by the Lord that he would sit on twelve thrones with the others and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). Judas, of his own choice (unlike David Patten) never fulfilled this promise of the Lord. This doesn’t make the Lord a false prophet in the case of Judas. Nor were the Lord and His prophet, Joseph Smith, mistaken in the case of David Patten.

The Lord knocks at the door and gives the promise or opportunity. Whether we open the door and respond in a way to reap the potential blessing is up to us, and in many cases, up to the righteousness of others. In David Pallen’s case, extenuating circumstances prevented him from serving an earthly mission: a mob killed him. To understand the case of David Patten, one might study DC 124:49, which states if “their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.”

Some critics have pointed to the “thus saith the Lord” phrase at the beginning of D&C 114 (verses 1 and 2) as proof that this was a prophecy. A quick examination of other sections where “thus saith the Lord” was part of the revelation demonstrates that the phrase was not used exclusively for prophecies (as in D&C 87) but is also used in revelations where instructions (D&C 21, 44, 49, 50, 52, 75, 89, 91, etc.) callings (D&C 36, 55, 66, 69, 99, 100, 108, etc.), and reproof (D&C 61, 95) are given. More than half the time the phrase was used in the first verse of the section. When used in the first verse, it appears to be an indication that it is being given as a revelation. But callings in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are considered callings from God given by revelation. (See Ex. 28:1; Heb. 5:4; Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 1, Callings)

en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies/David_Patten_to_serve_mission

 

[TexanKnight]

You accuse me of copy and paste…that only means that the answer is out there available for anyone to see. I read your question and I found the answer…the answer is ready. I don’t even have to add anything to it. It makes sense to me and I accept the answer…You may accept or reject it…and of course I doubt that any answer would please you. You are already pre determined to reject whatever anyone says to the contrary.

Here is one more answer to the so called prophecy…in this case it is just a mission call.

D & C 114 was not a prophecy, it was a mission call. Joseph Smith, under the inspiration of the Lord, issued a call for David Patten to go on a mission the following spring. This call by revelation is not a prophecy that David would serve a mission, but an admonition to set all his affairs in order so that he may perform a mission. Although Patten was killed, his affairs were in order when he died so that his family could endure his absence. This alone indicates the Lord’s foreknowledge of Patten’s death. And who knows but that Patten served that mission call on the other side of the veil?

In any event, Patten’s death would not change the instructional nature of that call. Joseph Smith declared that: To the “great Jehovah . . . the past, present, and future were and are, with Him, one eternal ‘now’.”[2] The Savior does know all that will happen to us individually, but he still gives agency to us and to others who impact on our lives, which usage often precludes what would have happened if the Lord’s will were done on earth as it is in heaven.

There are several Biblical parallels to David Patten’s mission call, such as the calling of Judas as an Apostle. As one of the Twelve Apostles, Judas was promised by the Lord that he would sit on twelve thrones with the others and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). Judas, of his own choice (unlike David Patten) never fulfilled this promise of the Lord. This doesn’t make the Lord a false prophet in the case of Judas. Nor were the Lord and His prophet, Joseph Smith, mistaken in the case of David Patten.

The Lord knocks at the door and gives the promise or opportunity. Whether we open the door and respond in a way to reap the potential blessing is up to us, and in many cases, up to the righteousness of others. In David Pallen’s case, extenuating circumstances prevented him from serving an earthly mission: a mob killed him. To understand the case of David Patten, one might study DC 124:49, which states if “their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.”

Some critics have pointed to the “thus saith the Lord” phrase at the beginning of D&C 114 (verses 1 and 2) as proof that this was a prophecy. A quick examination of other sections where “thus saith the Lord” was part of the revelation demonstrates that the phrase was not used exclusively for prophecies (as in D&C 87) but is also used in revelations where instructions (D&C 21, 44, 49, 50, 52, 75, 89, 91, etc.) callings (D&C 36, 55, 66, 69, 99, 100, 108, etc.), and reproof (D&C 61, 95) are given. More than half the time the phrase was used in the first verse of the section. When used in the first verse, it appears to be an indication that it is being given as a revelation. But callings in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are considered callings from God given by revelation. (See Ex. 28:1; Heb. 5:4; Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 1, Callings)

en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies/David_Patten_to_serve_mission

LOLOL…another failed cut and paste and more proof js was a false prophet. Only cut and pasters would actually believe the silly attempts to explain away these false prophesies.

again, the cutting and pasting only proves you have no idea about your “church”

 

[twopekinguys]

Evan,

Maybe you haven’t read the forum rules.

Lengthy excerpts of articles or publications that exceed standards for “reasonable use” (generally no more than three paragraphs) or might otherwise be construed to infringe copyright"

and

"Avoid quoting from copyrighted works. Instead, paraphrase what is said and provide a link. If you do quote,** limit your quotes to one to three paragraphs**. "

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=162027

Time for some original thought, don’t you think?

 

[Stephen168]

Joseph Smith, as a prophecy and recorded in Mormon scripture (Pearl of Great Price, History of Joseph Smith, verse 34), said the Book of Mormon was a historical book about ALL the American Indians. Science has proven that to be false.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Paul…before I start talking about Prophets and prophecies I wanted to get this out of the way.

This posting and the one related to my comments on Adam and Eve are very offensive…and clearly untrue!

It makes me wonder if you honestly investigate what Mormons are really saying.

I don’t need to investigate it; I lived it.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[PaulDupre1]

Paul…before I start talking about Prophets and prophecies I wanted to get this out of the way.

This posting and the one related to my comments on Adam and Eve are very offensive…and clearly untrue!

You said that if Adam and Eve had not sinned, they could not have felt desire for one another and had children.

This implies that a man and a woman in paradise could not feel attraction to one another; so a husband and wife’s desire for one another is a result of sin.

I know that this is Mormon teaching. It even says that in the endowment film. I can quote it for you if you’d like.

You can’t backpedal away from your church’s twisted teachings.

As I said, they are the legacy of polygamy.

As far as the LDS “sacred” attitude toward marriage, I will quote apostle Heber C. Kimball (ancestor of prophet Spencer W. Kimball):

“I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow.”

• Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.

Heber C. Kimball:

Speaking to a group of departing missionaries… “Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.”

• Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp.129-30.

and again…

“I say to those who are elected to go on missions, remember they are not your sheep: they belong to Him that sends you. Then do not make a choice of any of those sheep; do not make selections before they are brought home and put into the fold. You under stand that. Amen”

• Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.256.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a veritable gold mine of offensive misogynistic quotes from Mormon leaders, which we will happily post if you continue to insist on the lofty LDS view of women and marriage.

Then we could discuss the church-approved castrations of young men who got between some of the old LDS men and the young girls they wanted for plural wives.

Ah, those Mormon family values…

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[zaffiroborant]

You said that if Adam and Eve had not sinned, they could not have felt desire for one another and had children.

This implies that a man and a woman in paradise could not feel attraction to one another; so a husband and wife’s desire for one another is a result of sin.

Ah, those Mormon family values…

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Thanks for this Paul, I was trying to come up with a way to explain this and couldn’t. I can not look at my kids and reconcile the idea that they were only possible because of sin. That’s like feeding your children nourishing food encased in excrement.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Heber C. Kimball:

“I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow.”

• Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.

Heber C. Kimball:

Speaking to a group of departing missionaries… “Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.”

• Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp.129-30.

and again…

“I say to those who are elected to go on missions, remember they are not your sheep: they belong to Him that sends you. Then do not make a choice of any of those sheep; do not make selections before they are brought home and put into the fold. You under stand that. Amen”

• Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.256.

Kimball certainly was a nasty piece of work.

 

[iepuras]

Paul…before I start talking about Prophets and prophecies I wanted to get this out of the way.

This posting and the one related to my comments on Adam and Eve are very offensive…and clearly untrue!

It makes me wonder if you honestly investigate what Mormons are really saying.

I do not consider myself lustful…I do not consider marital relations lustful and Mormons try their best to live the commandments of God as anybody else from any other Christian religion.

I do not agree with many things in the Catholic Church and other religions, but I do not doubt the sincerity and good intentions of their members.

What you just did here in this post is to throw mud and denigrate what is very dear and sacred to us.

These kinds of comments just make you less credible and make me question whether you engage in debate to honestly and truthfully investigate the issues.

If we are going to be claiming offense, I find it offensive when you accuse us of not knowing or truly understanding Mormonism. Many of us are former Mormons and we understand exactly what the LDS church and its so-called prophets teach. It is because we really understand that we are now former Mormons.

LDS prophets have taught things that are highly offensive to us too. Paul provided misogynistic quotes from LDS apostles. The doctrine of polygamy is offensive. The teaching that women have to go through a husband to get to God is offensive.

The LDS ban on blacks holding the priesthood was offensive. The teachings of prophets and apostles that blacks were fence sitters in the war in heaven are offensive.

The teaching of LDS prophets and apostles that Elohim had intercourse with Mary to conceive Jesus is highly offensive.

The persecution card gets really old really fast.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Evan,

Maybe you haven’t read the forum rules.

Lengthy excerpts of articles or publications that exceed standards for “reasonable use” (generally no more than three paragraphs) or might otherwise be construed to infringe copyright"

and

"Avoid quoting from copyrighted works. Instead, paraphrase what is said and provide a link. If you do quote,** limit your quotes to one to three paragraphs**. "

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=162027

Time for some original thought, don’t you think?

I don’t know how much “original thought” you can expect. Are you suggesting that forum posters do not routinely check and reference resources they feel could assist them in proving a point or in defending their faith? I know I’ve done that. I’m not a scholar so there is a lot I’ve cross-referenced because I don’t know all the answers. I’d venture to say this is the case with a large number of our veteran posters too. Perhaps I’m worse because often times I don’t even cite a source!

Whether it’s against the forum rules I suppose is another question, but then again plenty of others have posted more than the “recommended” requested by forum administrators and I haven’t seen anything stated against them. Perhaps it’s only acceptable when it’s a Roman Catholic doing so? Of course you wouldn’t think that way but I find it peculiar that this is when the forum rules are suddenly invoked.

Additionally, when there are approximately 3-4 people asking him questions at the same time, with everyone expecting an answer, I don’t know how we could not expect him to use other sources to help defend his position. I mean we’re talking about questions on an internet forum, in which we participate in our spare time, not a doctoral dissertation where you need to bring in your own original research.

I’m not here to defend Evanfaust’s opinions, in fact I find his conclusions to be incorrect and I agree far more with you, TexanKnight, Livingwaters PaulDupre, and the other Catholic members who have participated in these discussions but on the other hand everyone seems to be piling questions and then adding the expectation that some kind of wonderful, “original” thinking should be provided.

 

[taylorf]

I don’t know how much “original thought” you can expect. Are you suggesting that forum posters do not routinely check and reference resources they feel could assist them in proving a point or in defending their faith? I know I’ve done that. I’m not a scholar so there is a lot I’ve cross-referenced because I don’t know all the answers. I’d venture to say this is the case with a large number of our veteran posters too. Perhaps I’m worse because often times I don’t even cite a source!

Whether it’s against the forum rules I suppose is another question, but then again plenty of others have posted more than the “recommended” requested by forum administrators and I haven’t seen anything stated against them. Perhaps it’s only acceptable when it’s a Roman Catholic doing so? Of course you wouldn’t think that way but I find it peculiar that this is when the forum rules are suddenly invoked.

Additionally, when there are approximately 3-4 people asking him questions at the same time, with everyone expecting an answer, I don’t know how we could not expect him to use other sources to help defend his position. I mean we’re talking about questions on an internet forum, in which we participate in our spare time, not a doctoral dissertation where you need to bring in your own original research.

I’m not here to defend Evanfaust’s opinions, in fact I find his conclusions to be incorrect and I agree far more with you, TexanKnight, Livingwaters PaulDupre, and the other Catholic members who have participated in these discussions but on the other hand everyone seems to be piling questions and then adding the expectation that some kind of wonderful, “original” thinking should be provided.

I don’t disagree but he’s the one to have claimed reading hundreds of books and thousands of articles over decades. You’d think this stuff would come a little easier and quicker.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I don’t disagree but he’s the one to have claimed reading hundreds of books and thousands of articles over decades. You’d think this stuff would come a little easier and quicker.

Well if he did read hundreds of books then they’re still not “original material” so that “disqualifies” him anyway. I think there is too much emphasis placed on where he gets his information rather than refuting what he’s provided. Unless I’m mistaken I don’t recall Evanfaust having been particularly rude, either.

 

[taylorf]

Well if he did read hundreds of books then they’re still not “original material” so that “disqualifies” him anyway. I think there is too much emphasis placed on where he gets his information rather than refuting what he’s provided. Unless I’m mistaken I don’t recall Evanfaust having been particularly rude, either.

I don’t think he’s been particularly rude either, and I understand he’s one against many. I’m surprised he’s lasted this long. However, the vast majority of his citations are FAIR. With all the research he’s done over the years, I am kind of expecting references a bit more interesting. FAIR’s credibility is less than stellar.

 

[iepuras]

I don’t know how much “original thought” you can expect. Are you suggesting that forum posters do not routinely check and reference resources they feel could assist them in proving a point or in defending their faith? I know I’ve done that. I’m not a scholar so there is a lot I’ve cross-referenced because I don’t know all the answers. I’d venture to say this is the case with a large number of our veteran posters too. Perhaps I’m worse because often times I don’t even cite a source!

Whether it’s against the forum rules I suppose is another question, but then again plenty of others have posted more than the “recommended” requested by forum administrators and I haven’t seen anything stated against them. Perhaps it’s only acceptable when it’s a Roman Catholic doing so? Of course you wouldn’t think that way but I find it peculiar that this is when the forum rules are suddenly invoked.

Additionally, when there are approximately 3-4 people asking him questions at the same time, with everyone expecting an answer, I don’t know how we could not expect him to use other sources to help defend his position. I mean we’re talking about questions on an internet forum, in which we participate in our spare time, not a doctoral dissertation where you need to bring in your own original research.

I’m not here to defend Evanfaust’s opinions, in fact I find his conclusions to be incorrect and I agree far more with you, TexanKnight, Livingwaters PaulDupre, and the other Catholic members who have participated in these discussions but on the other hand everyone seems to be piling questions and then adding the expectation that some kind of wonderful, “original” thinking should be provided.

My questions are routinely ignored by the LDS posters, and I rarely expect an answer. Sometimes it is interesting to see which questions are answered and which are ignored. That is pretty telling.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Well if he did read hundreds of books then they’re still not “original material” so that “disqualifies” him anyway. I think there is too much emphasis placed on where he gets his information rather than refuting what he’s provided. Unless I’m mistaken I don’t recall Evanfaust having been particularly rude, either.

If someone is going to copy and paste material I prefer they put quote tags around it ,at least that way I’m not left wondering if what I’m reading are the words and thoughts of the poster or someone else’s words and thoughts. If someone simply pastes the work of others you are not really having a conversation with that person. While the rules for writing a paper certainly don’t apply to venues like this, just posting someone else’s work doesn’t strike me as keeping with the conversational aspect of boards like this.

 

[PaulDupre1]

evanfaust:
Evanfaust,

I think I ought to say, at this juncture, that you have been very polite and have done your best to answer honestly the questions we have put to you.

Don’t be discouraged. It is the way it is.

You have my respect. I prefer clarity to agreement, and you have provided much clarity.

I thank you for that.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[TexanKnight]

I don’t think he’s been particularly rude either, and I understand he’s one against many. I’m surprised he’s lasted this long. However, the vast majority of his citations are FAIR. With all the research he’s done over the years, I am kind of expecting references a bit more interesting. FAIR’s credibility is less than stellar.

And THAT is my point.

He claims to have done all this research, but cannot form an argument without long cut and pasting. When he HAS used his own words, it appears he has no clue about the LDS Church OR the Catholic Church.