Posted on 12/29/2007 8:34:35 AM PST by greyfoxx39
Anti-Mormon literature tends to recycle the same themes. Some ministries are using a series of fifty questions, which they believe will help "cultists" like the Mormons. One ministry seems to suggest that such questions are a good way to deceive Latter-day Saints, since the questions "give...them hope that you are genuinely interested in learning more about their religion."
This ministry tells its readers what their real intent should be with their Mormon friend: "to get them thinking about things they may have never thought about and researching into the false teachings of their church." Thus, the questions are not sincere attempts to understand what the Latter-day Saints believe, but are a smokescreen or diversionary tactic to introduce anti-Mormon material.[1]
The questions are not difficult to answer, nor are they new. This page provides links to answers to the questions. It should be noted that the questions virtually all do at least one of the following:
|
|
This was not a prophecy, but a command from God to build the temple. There's a difference. Jesus said people should repent; just because many didn't doesn't make Him a false messenger, simply a messenger that fallible people didn't heed.
Learn more here: Independence temple to be built "in this generation"
In Brigham (and Joseph's) day, there had been newspaper articles reporting that a famous astronomer had reported that there were men on the moon and elsewhere. This was published in LDS areas; the retraction of this famous hoax never was publicized, and so they may not have even heard about it.
Brigham and others were most likely repeating what had been told them by the science of the day. (Lots of Biblical prophets talked about the earth being flat, the sky being a dome, etc.—it is inconsistent for conservative Protestants to complain that a false belief about the physical world shared by others in their culture condemns Brigham and Joseph, but does not condemn Bible prophets.)
In any case, Brigham made it clear that he was expressing his opinion: "Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is." Prophets are entitled to their opinions; in fact, the point of Brigham's discourse is that the only fanatic is one who insists upon clinging to a false idea.
The problem with "Adam-God" is that we don't understand what Brigham meant. All of his statements cannot be reconciled with each other. In any case, Latter-day Saints are not inerrantists—they believe prophets can have their own opinions. Only the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve can establish official LDS doctrine. That never happened with any variety of "Adam-God" doctrine. Since Brigham seemed to also agree with statements like Mormon 9:12, and the Biblical record, it seems likely that we do not entirely understand how he fit all of these ideas together.
Peter and the other apostles likewise misunderstood the timing of gospel blessings to non-Israelites. Even following a revelation to Peter, many members of the early Christian Church continued to fight about this point and how to implement it—even Peter and Paul had disagreements. Yet, Bible-believing Christians, such as the Latter-day Saints, continue to consider both as prophets. Critics should be careful that they do not have a double standard, or they will condemn Bible prophets as well.
The Latter-day Saints are not scriptural or prophetic inerrantists. They are not troubled when prophets have personal opinions which turn out to be incorrect. In the case of the priesthood ban, members of the modern Church accepted the change with more joy and obedience than many first century members accepted the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles without the need for keeping the Mosaic Law.
Believing Christians should be careful. Unless they want to be guilty of a double standard, they will end up condemning many Biblical prophets by this standard.
Most "contradictions" are actually misunderstandings or misrepresentations of LDS doctrine and teachings by critics. The LDS standard for doctrine is the scriptures, and united statements of the First Presidency and the Twelve.
The Saints believe they must be led by revelation, adapted to the circumstances in which they now find themselves. Noah was told to build an ark, but not all people required that message. Moses told them to put the Passover lamb’s blood on their door; that was changed with the coming of Christ, etc.
No member is expected to follow prophetic advice "just because the prophet said so." Each member is to receive his or her own revelatory witness from the Holy Ghost. We cannot be led astray in matters of importance if we always appeal to God for His direction.
The First Vision accounts are not contradictory. No early member of the Church claimed that Joseph changed his story, or contradicted himself. Critics of the Church have not been familiar with the data on this point.
The shortest answer is that the Saints believe the First Vision not because of textual evidence, but because of personal revelation.
The Church didn't really "choose" one of many accounts; many of the accounts we have today were in diaries, some of which were not known till recently (1832; 1835 (2); Richards, Neibaur). The 1840 (Orson Pratt) and 1842 (Orson Hyde) accounts were secondary recitals of what happened to the Prophet; the Wentworth letter and interview for the Pittsburgh paper were synopsis accounts (at best). The account which the Church uses in the Pearl of Great Price (written in 1838) was published in 1842 by Joseph Smith as part of his personal history. As new accounts were discovered they were widely published in places like BYU Studies.
This is a misunderstanding and caricature of LDS doctrine. There is, however, the Biblical doctrine that the apostles will help judge Israel:
Since the saints believe in modern apostles, they believe that those modern apostles (including Joseph) will have a role in judgment appointed to them by Jesus.
Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.
This question is based on the mistaken assumption that the Bible message that Jesus is Christ and Lord is somehow "proved" by archeology, which is not true. It also ignores differences between Old and New World archeology. For example, since we don't know how to pronounce the names of ANY Nephite-era city in the American archeological record, how would we know if we had found a Nephite city or not?
The term "familiar spirit," quoted in the often-poetic Isaiah (and used by Nephi to prophesy about the modern publication of the Book of Mormon) is a metaphor, not a description of any text or its origin.
The critics need to read the next verses. The Book of Mormon says that God may command polygamy, just a few verses later. (Jac. 2:30).
Many Biblical prophets had more than one wife, and there is no indication that God condemned them. And, the Law of Moses had laws about plural wives—why not just forbid them if it was evil, instead of telling people how they were to conduct it?
And, many early Christians didn't think polygamy was inherently evil:
The critics have their history wrong. The change dates to 1837. The change was made by Joseph Smith in the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, though it was not carried through in some other editions, which mistakenly followed the 1830 instead of Joseph’s change. It was restored in the 1981 edition, but that was nearly 150 years after the change was made by Joseph.
This issue has been discussed extensively in the Church's magazines (e.g. the Ensign), and the scholarly publication BYU Studies.
In Alma, the reference is to Jesus Christ, who before His birth did not have a physical body.
John 4:24 does not say God is "a" spirit, but says "God is spirit." There is no "a" in the Greek. The Bible also says "God is truth" or "God is light." Those things are true, but we don't presume God is JUST truth, or JUST light—or JUST spirit.
As one non-LDS commentary puts it:
In the Bible, there are accounts of God commanding or approving less than complete disclosure. These examples seem to involve the protection of the innocent from the wicked, which fits the case of Abraham and his wife nicely.
The Bible also says that Bethlehem ("the city of David") is at Jerusalem. (2_Kings 14:20) Was the Bible wrong? (Bethlehem is in the direct area of Jerusalem, being only about seven miles apart.)
There may ro may not have been horses in ancient America over 10,000 years ago as your linked article theorizes, but we certainly know that there were not any Israelites in ancient America as your Book of Mormon states.
Ah, you look thru the lens of the Christian snapshot of little ones as being self-centered creatures & you conclude, "Ah, how pathetic." Then you look thru the lens of the Mormon snapshot of little ones who are absolutely perfect little angels minus one sin--having grown bigger in upstanding Mormon homes who then become Meadow Mtn murderers. (So what? It was these murderers' upbringing that was so faulty? Or that one day they magically became "sinners" all at the same exact childhood age? How logical is that?)
You seem to have some underlying problem with thinking, "no, the 'crime' (if you can even call it that) doesn't fit the punishment." Well then, according to this logic of yours, you should be absolutely joyful over the historic Christian take on original sin & its consequences & flabbergasted over the reverse take on this by the Mormon church.
The Christian version is that Adam & Eve disobeyed God, bringing death & spiritual enslavement into the world. Adam & Eve deliberately chose the words of the Serpent to obey (Gen. 3:5) instead of God. That whom you obey becomes your leader, your god, your father. The Pharisees found this out when Jesus referred to them not as "spiritual brothers of Jesus from the pre-existent days sharing the same Heavenly Father," but as children of Satan.
Like father, like son. The wars we see; the strife; the conflict; the violence; murders; thefts; rapes; exploitation; abuse; greed; vice; coveting; envy; pride; self-glory; oppression; persecution; abuse of power; etc. all that we see is not because people are born so innocent. (If they were, we'd have a different world).
The Mormon take on the other hand, in weighing this question of "does the crime fit the punishment," is that original sin was actually the open door for men to become gods. They believe it was only thru mortality (death) that mere mortals could become immortal (divinity). So man sins. What happens? Why they automatically get awarded the opportunity to become gods!!!
(How lunatic! How insane of a thought!)
Worse, LDS general authorities have gone on to describe what Adam & Eve did as a "celebration." (Yeah, let's have an original sin party that lasts a lifetime...We'll 'celebrate' that "sewer" list I read above of wars, crime, exploitation, abuse & every other resultant consequence of the garden's actions.)
What you miss out in all of this is the story of the garden. Who said men would become "like God" if they disobeyed God? Why the serpent did (Gen. 3:5). (Proof that 'Serpent theology' reigns in the Mormon church). The second part you miss is that God at one time personally related to us on our level (Gen. 3:8). He was among us. Sin cut off this firsthand fellowship. His glorious presence departed. Somehow you think that somebody can be "innocent" even tho the Source of that innocense has departed.
If you thought you were a person who absolutely had to have sex, then the only way for you to remain pure is to be married. If your partner departs, and you still thought you had to have sex, how is it that the purity would remain if no partner remained? The same is true here in a spiritual sense. If a person is not reconciled to God thru the covenant people of God, they are part of the broader "cut off" people...people minus the firsthand presence of God.
As for babies & toddlers, I already quoted you in a past OT passage post that David hoped to once again see his infant son...a measure of hope is fed to us thru such a passage...your description of the church is off-base in this area as the Church doesn't play the role of "condemners" of little ones as if we sit around beyond the veil as each baby or toddler comes thru pointing signs that say 'this way' or 'that way'.
We leave that up to a sovereign God, which is where you seem to have a main problem in your life: Control.
I've noticed a theme emerging thru some of your posts: You seem to simply wrestle with the issue of a God who actually has Master Control.
For example, I can bet your top-dollar that this following Scriptural passage would rub raw against your skin: "Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! For He tells Moses: I will show mercy to whom I show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it does not depend on human will or effort, but on God who shows mercy...He shows mercy to whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills. You will say to me, therefore, 'Why then does He still find fault? For who can resist His will? But who are you--anyone who talks back to God? Will what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Or has the potter no right over his clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor? And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction? And what if He did this to make known the riches of His glory on objects of mercy that He prepared beforehand for glory--on us whom He also called...?" (Romans 9:16, 18-24)
The bottom line is that if you think people are deserving of some degree of glory, then you're not looking @ the afterlife as a grace & mercy & compassion based eventuality...instead, you view it as "give me my grade of what I earned & how dare your capricious hand extend too far." By our radical self-centeredness, what we've each "earned" is hell--defined as a continued separation from God. Reconciliation is based on his mercy & compassion...
If you were part of a reality TV program where you were told that among the group of women in that room for you to select a wife, whoever you didn't select would remain unmarried the rest of their lives...the fact that you didn't select them is not your fault; they were already unmarried. By you showing favor toward one is evidence of compassionate love toward your bride; not injustice toward the rest.
Yeah what did Christ tell the ones who was going to stone a woman. Let the first one without sin cast the first stone?
Of course Christ also hung out with the Samaritans who to the Jews was like the Mormans to the Christian religion.
~”If I am not mistaken, I think the idea of the Adam-God thing started with Joseph Smith’s “King Follet” sermon.”~
You are mistaken. The King Follet sermon chiefly expanded on man’s divine potential.
http://www.mrm.org/topics/documents-speeches/king-follett-discourse
No, the Adam-God thing was the only quote by any Church leader that I’m aware of which says such a thing. Even Young repudiated the statement on multiple occasions, which leads me to think the quote is either a misspeak or a mistranscription.
Still, it’s very common for our critics to take a single quote and beat us over the head with it, in the face of opposite and established teachings of the LDS Church. Hence their claim to the Adam-God theory. It is not LDS doctrine. Funny thing is, in the eyes of many of them, my saying that it is not LDS doctrine is merely obfuscation - they insist that we really do believe it, but we’re just trying to cover it up.
It would be comical if it weren’t so stupid.
For those who have just joined us here are representative excerpts from the answers provided by the LDS Church:
(Quotation marks omitted)
This was not a prophecy,
Prophets are entitled to their opinions
we don’t understand what Brigham meant.
Critics should be careful
Believing Christians should be careful.
Most “contradictions” are actually misunderstandings or misrepresentations of LDS doctrine and teachings by critics.
Critics of the Church have not been familiar with the data on this point.
This is a misunderstanding and caricature of LDS doctrine.
This question is based on the mistaken assumption
The critics need to read the next verses.
The critics have their history wrong.
“Charter Member of the Romney FR Resistance”
Sign me up! Ha!
~”Why are you getting so exercised about the forum placement, tant?”~
Because I consider anti-Mormonism to be a theological issue, not a political/current events/activism one. I think that the categorization is wrong.
I do not see recategorization into Religion as censorship. Pulling the thread would be censorship.
The return question would be, why did you choose to place a plainly religious thread in News/Activism? This seems to betray an agenda, Greyfoxx. If you wanted a religious discussion, you would not have made that choice.
~”You should consider this an ideal proselytizing opportunity.”~
I’ve said many times that a forum such as this is an inappropriate venue for such an important topic. I’m here to refute lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations of the faith that I hold dear, not proselyte. I’m also here to learn, and I do learn a great deal about human nature and about my faith. The more I learn, the more I’m convinced that being a Mormon is the right thing to do.
~”BTW, you didn’t even thank me for pinging you.”~
I thought true service was done without expectation of reward? Still, it was a stand-up gesture.
Touche!
Very good summary.
Oh you mean like THIS very informative piece of News/Activism that was allowed to stay and wasn’t removed to the Religion forum??
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873203/posts
this site will provide the LDS-APPROVED ANSWERS
Your words not theirs. FAIR is not giving LDS Church-Approved answers.
From FAIR: "FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice."
That also covers your title "(LDS SITE FAIR)", which is misleading. FAIR are LDS members but they do not speak for church doctrine and only voice their own opinions.
Members are free to agree or disagree with FAIR's opinions on both non-doctrinal and doctrinal teachings.
~”...but we certainly know that there were not any Israelites in ancient America as your Book of Mormon states.”~
No, we don’t know that. Genetic analysis is inconclusive.
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_2.html
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dna/ButlerBofMandDNA_Feb2006.php
Additionally, there is a good deal of archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. Problem is, very few non-LDS scholars have an interest in examining it. So, they neither substantiate nor refute the claims.
Here are some starting points, if you care to delve in:
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMEvidence.shtml
Oops! There you go, attributing motive!
Oh, yeah, and the "Shoot Mormons" thread that was never moved, in spite of several requests by various FReepers....I don't remember Tant being so concerned about forum placement in either of those threads.
Yep, just like that. I agree, it should have been moved, or properly categorized in the first place.
~”There you go, attributing motive!”~
Prey tell, then, what was your motive?
George D. Watt - Brigham Young's own personal secretary, and who invented "phonography" (part of what is now called shorthand) - was the one who transcribed the speech. IIRC he remained in Young's good graces long after the publication of the "Adam-God" sermon - and I am unfamiliar with any repudiation of it by Young himself. I hardly think it was "a misspeak or a mistranscription".
When you are catching flak...you generally are over the target.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.