By the way Tex, I am still waiting for the
 

prophetic confirmation with the approbation of the Twelve showing me the directives in the OT ordering Israelites to slaughter entire nations to be in fact the actual orders from God.

You described it as a fact, so we're awaiting your proof that the modern prophets have confirmed the historicity of those events.

Would anyone be shocked to learn that Tex lives in a cave in New Mexico?

I don't really feel a need to justify the scriptures.

Osama is my roommate.

I'm asking you to use modern revelation to confirm your belief that God ordered the mass murder of citizens of a different religion. We only believe in the Bible insofar as it is correctly translated. Translation in this sense is not academic but means correctly brought forth. You do not understand the teachings of the Church if you believe the mass murders were God's work.

You cannot be that lazy as being unwilling to justify your cockeyed views without some sort of reasoning and empirical evidence, can you?

The difference between Tex and us is this:

Tex wants it to be true.

We want it to not be true.

Isn't all this "Tex wants" stuff just like non-Mormons telling us what we believe?

Doesn't it bother you when someone tells you that you believe Jesus was Joseph Smith?

I understand the metaphysical possibility I could be wrong, but the mass murders is so contrary to how God typically acted in days when he was intimate with people, it makes no sense other than to point out it was a Hebrew cover-up, or perhaps something else. A book by Kitchen, a believer in the general historicity of the OT, points out that there really is no evidence of mass genocide indicated in the OT. It appears much of that could have been hyperbole. He even looked at Jericho and does some interesting relating of the archaeology.

It's an interesting question ... is modern revelation on any given Biblical passage required for it to be considered valid?

Pardon me, Arch, but I giggle every time you suggest I do not understand the teachings of the Church. Coming from someone who discounts large swaths of scripture and GA statements, I find this on each occasion hilarious.

Godwin's Law, Corollary 2.

Tex, do you discount ANY GA statements?

I regularly read the religion/politics/current event threads, but don't post alot because of what these threads usually break down into.

That said, I think this request is a little crazy. Why should he spend the time and energy doing all the research to, in a way, re-prove the scriptures?

If modern GAs have said something to discount the OT account, please, by all means, let us know.