Explaining what a Prophecy really is

Excerpts from a paper written by Michael T. Griffith

[My comments will be in bold and bracketed]

Typically, anti-Mormons point to Deuteronomy 18:21-22 as their measuring rod for branding as "false" a number of Joseph Smith's prophecies. Here is how these verses read in the Revised Standard Version (RSV):

And if you say in your heart, "How may we know the word which the

Lord has not spoken?" when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

Using a strictly literal interpretation of these verses as their guide, most if not all anti-Mormons insist that if a prophecy does not come to pass, it is automatically false, period.

[And, why shouldn't it be a literal interpretation? Is the Bible the word of God or not? Can we trust this as a common rule to determine false prophets from real ones, or is someone going to try to explain why we can't use this literally?]

These critics don't seem to realize they are stepping into quicksand when they use this criterion to attack Joseph Smith. The issue of prophecy is extremely complex. It is by no means as simple as a strictly literal understanding of Deuteronomy 18:21-22.

[Why is this? Because those that oppose the Mormon acceptance of Joseph as a prophet have been able to demonstrate that he could not possibly be a prophet according to the standard set by GOD?]

The rigid anti-Mormon interpretation of these verses invalidates several Bible prophecies as much as it does some of Joseph Smith's prophecies. In fact, atheistic critics have used this same sort of approach to attack several prophecies in the Bible.

[And this is a bad thing because if we can use that argument to debunk the Biblical prophecies, Mormon prophecies fall as well. Basically the argument here is: if the Bible is true, then the Book of Mormon is true as well. He wants us to think that they stand or fall together, and cannot be divided. I say, let the Bible be the Bible, we are talking about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet, not trying the whole Christian system at once. Besides, Anti-Mormons aren't the only ones who have stated that the Bible is not completely reliable and has had many changes to it over the years. Mormons use that as the cornerstone of their introduction to the Book of Mormon and other 'doctrines'.]

Rules on Prophecy

However, after studying prophecy for several years, I have deduced certain rules which, when taken into account, enable us to explain the difficult prophecies uttered by certain Bible prophets and by Joseph Smith. I will now list these rules. Most of them are intertwined to varying degrees.

[This is where he proceeds to tell members how to limit their reason and logic, giving them the parameters necessary to maintain belief. This is nothing more than instruction on how to avoid seeing Joseph as anything other than what Mormons have told them.]

1. Almost all prophecy is conditional to one degree or another, even if this is not stated in the prophecy itself (which is often the case). [ If someone stands before you claiming to hear God, talk with God, and give instruction according to God, then they can't very well make it conditional upon the actions of the listener. Either it comes to pass, or it isn't a prophecy. It's merely a series of plausibilities based on current events. They are 'best guesses'. Not from God.]

2. In many cases human actions and choices can alter, postpone, or prevent the fulfillment of prophecy.

[That's fine and dandy. In that case---ANY prophecy can be avoided or put off and unfulfilled. It's nothing more than a horoscope at that point, and what's so divine about that? Why do we even NEED prophets if they can't tell us what God will make happen?]

3. A prophecy is not always telling us what will happen, but what could happen under certain circumstances.

[That's really rich. Not once have I seen such a disclaimer written along with the prophecy. It would take some of the punch out of it, wouldn't it? If all prophecies were written with a bunch of 'circumstances' attached to it, then it's nothing more than well-meaning advice. Why should I believe in hell?]

4. A prophet can misinterpret the timetable for a prophecy's fulfillment (this, of course, does not invalidate the prophecy itself).

[A man cannot claim to speak for God in this case. Either he has a special connection and can get his prophecies and visions to the people correctly, or he is merely stating plausible outcomes based on current courses of actions. If a prophet states that he and others will still be alive when Christ comes, and they all pass away without that happening, it is not open for debate or reconstruction. He said God told him 'X' would happen before he died, 'X' did not happen and he is now dead, therefore he did not get the message from God. Not a prophet]

5. A prophet can be mistaken about certain details of a prophecy but correct with regard to its central message.

[Only after the time for it to come to pass has long gone, then we are forced to jump back and re-interpret it so that it remains a prophecy. Sorry, can't fall for that. A prophet is a prophet if he can PROPHESY, not guess, not make suggestions, and not blame others for his lack of ability to prophesy ANYTHING.]

6. A prophecy can apply to more than one occurrence or time period, i.e., it can have dual application.

[Another twist to make the untrue, "true" again. After all, we want to remain hopeful that our prophet has the ability, we don't want to be disappointed that we put so much faith in a man to direct us, and let us know the mind of God.]

7. A prophecy's fulfillment can be intended to take place in the spirit world or during the millennium, even if this is not stated in the prophecy itself.

[Not if it specifically says that "X" will happen BEFORE death, or during this current generation, or before I turn 88 years old. Putting a time period on it definitely means that it is subject to that threshold, either it happens or it doesn't. No wonder the current prophet doesn't make this mistake in his own administration of the office]

8. The fulfillment of prophecy can go unobserved and/or unrecorded.

[I doubt it very much. If even ONE prophecy of Joseph's was fulfilled, the entire Mormon church would announce it in every newspaper and every satellite broadcast known to humankind. They wouldn't possibly let a tiny thing like 'proof' go unrecorded.]

9. A prophecy can contain rhetorical overstatements. For example, a prophecy might read that "every single house" in a certain town will be "leveled to the ground;' when what is really meant is that the town will suffer heavy destruction.

[Then he is just a man, making some estimates based on previous history or events. Anyone can tell you that a massive hurricane off the coast is going to hit the land and cause massive destruction. Anyone can tell you that tornadoes can level entire towns. But when a prophet says a certain city will fall, and be taken over by Mormons, AND it will occur within a generation, AND IT DOES NOT HAPPEN, then he is NOT a prophet. Just a man with an opinion, not special. I wouldn't be afraid of him.]

10. Such terms and expressions as "soon," "quickly," "in a little while," "shortly;' etc., are often given from the Lord's perspective of time--so that "soon ;' for example, might turn out to be a very long time by our reckoning.

[What a cop out. Joseph's prophecies did not all end in 'soon', 'quickly' or any other generality. He specifically stated times for his prophecies to come to pass, and they failed. Then the blame goes on who? That's right, the members who had no faith, or those who didn't follow the commandments, etc etc. I'm not afraid of Joseph Smith, or Gordon Hinckley, because they cannot predict a damn thing. No authority from God, no authority to command attention, not even worthy of getting a section of print in the Enquirer.]

11. The text of a prophecy can undergo alteration to the point that it no longer reflects the original intent of the prophecy. [And how is that supposed to have happened in the recent history of the Doctrine and Covenants? The text was changed so much that by the time the prophecy should have occurred, it was invalidated? That's a crock, and a lame excuse]

Therefore, just because a prophecy goes partially or totally unfulfilled does not mean it is false. Anyone who would deny this must explain those prophecies in the Bible which did not come to pass.

[Again, trying to lump the Bible in with the Book of Mormon, by claiming if one is false the other one goes with it. Please, you don't have to accept a pile of shit just because it is served up with gravy. And nobody HAS to run the Bible through the same mill in order to prove Joseph Smith was not a prophet. He says he was, and there is not one drop of proof. There is a ton of evidence that he IS NOT. But this writer would have you believe it is an all-or-nothing proposition.]

[This writer goes on to dissect the Bible, and tear up predictions and prophecies within it, according to the standard set in Deuteronomy, which, ironically is in the Bible. This argument isn't about whether or not the Bible is accurate in its prophecies, it is about whether or not Joseph Smith can be called a prophet based on his track record of prophecies. Clearly, he cannot pass. In the first part of this paper, the author even comes right out and says he is NOT going to argue about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet:

I will not be discussing any of the Prophet Joseph Smith's alleged "false prophecies;' for two reasons: (1) He never uttered any false prophecies; and (2) before I will even enter into such a discussion, I first insist on examining some important rules about prophecy itself, and on asking anti-Mormons to justify their attack on Joseph Smith in light of those prophecies in the Bible that plainly and clearly did not come to pass.

[The subject is off limits before he starts, because he already KNOWS that Joseph Smith never uttered any false prophecies. Then, he insists on laying down his own rules so that he can proceed to tear apart the Bible, which is NOT what the question is about.]

As usual, it is impossible to make sense to someone who has their fingers in their ears, chanting "I know the church is true". This would have been a much better refutation if he would have focused on explaining Joseph's prophecies specifically, instead of ignoring them and pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible instead.

We all know that the Bible is a compilation of many writings, and that some of them contradict each other. Using a book that the Mormons themselves claim is full of wrong interpretations (in order to prove that Joseph was indeed a prophet because he was supposedly as consistent as the prophets of the Bible) doesn't make Mormonism an improvement upon Christianity, just a poor version of it.