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.)
Yet you posted on that thread, and never once asked that it be removed.
I find it curious that you label this thread as “anti-Mormon.” It is hardly that since it is a releas from FAIR (Foundation for Apologetics Information & Research) an apolgetics arm of the LDS Church. How can it possibly BE anti-Mormon.
What YOU find anti-Mormon, is in fact only the responses by Freepers to the claims of FAIR. I suppose you think articles published by FAIR to be beyond approach and no one should be allowed to refute the claims publicly, especially Freepers?
Our Mission
Meridian is an online magazine that takes a new measure of the world, seeking to explore the principles of light, life, and truth as they apply to every aspect of our lives that we might all be more able to grow toward that society called Zion. It assumes that the solutions to life's real challenges as we live in the world are found within the context of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It celebrates life and affirms that reality is what God sees--not that darkness which temporarily seems to flourish--that goodness will triumph and that there is enormous potential in the human spirit.
FAIR, BYU and JeffLindsay as your sources? Puh-leeze.
Find an UNBIASED source or sources and get back to me.
Your problem remains that no non-Mormon has EVER reported finding anything related to the historical accounts in the Book of Mormon. No non-Mormon will ever find anything, because it is difficult to find evidence proving fiction.
We all deserve to go to Hell
~”Oh, yeah, and the “Shoot Mormons” thread...”~
As I recall, despite the overly inflammatory title, that article was a social editorial, not a religious debate - though the discussion certainly turned into a religious debate. It’s been months, though; I could be mistaken.
My point, Greyfoxx, is that Mormon theology is being used overtly as a means to torpedo a political candidate, and this is inappropriate. If the article were to have a political angle to it, there might be an argument to leave it on News/Activism. As it is, there is no such political angle. It is merely a discussion of theology. Well and good, but such pieces belong in Religion.
In any case, it doesn’t fly to justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior.
~”Find an UNBIASED source or sources and get back to me.”~
The few sources that refute Lindsay and FAIR are just as biased.
The problem is that your bias is preventing you from considering the point of view that disagrees with your own. Since you aren’t open to being persuaded, I see no reason to attempt to do so.
The fact remains that evidence exists. It is open to debate, but is has not been effectively refuted.
Right. The LDS Deseret News, owned by the LDS church, ran an article on Romney's Mormon hypocrisy (meaning LDS are anti-porn but Romney took $ from a porn venue) only because...anti-Mormons insist on it. (Example: July 10, 2007...Deseret runs article on Romney's 10-year board position for Marriott & outlines its tie to pornography)
The article does NOT clearly state that the students were urged to use the Internet to advance any particular candidate - just to engage about their faith. If you see that as political, that’s your business. I don’t think such an argument can be rationally made.
Two things:
(1) Have you ever noticed that there's a slash next to "News" called "Activism?" Is not 200 BYU graduates being led out to the Internet pasture to engage in e-activism, "activism?"
(2) Do you think the fact that you've been told at your local level, & that this article explicitly says that there's currently underway "a national conversation about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" has anything remotely to do with the fact that a Mormon is running for POTUS?
It doesn't matter whether or not these 200 are going to as you say, advance any particular candidate. That's just a red herring. The fact is these 200 know that the "national conversation" about Mormonism is often occurring on sites that talk about Romney. It's actually irrelevant if they would ever mention the word "Romney" (or not) in their postings.
The very fact of their likely presence cropping up on sites talking about news & politics is relevant. If you unleash e-activists on Activist/News Web sites, and if these activists have been directed to gravitate to wherever the "national conversation" on Mormonism is occurring, pray tell how is that irrelevant?
“Mormon theology is being used overtly as a means to torpedo a political candidate”
Ummm, no. Myth Romney’s candidacy has provided more than ample non-theological history to torpedo his campaign.
I think that your ‘church’ is going to find that Myth Romney running for President may have been one of the worst things to happen as you will see your conversion rates plummet due to the curiosity about his faith. Curiosity breeds research, and that is definitely not where you want any potential covert to go. 2 hours on Google and your mishies would be laughed out the front door upon which they knocked.
Good non-answer.
LOL, "social editorial"...your memory serves you poorly.
In any case, you have made your complaint (repeatedly). The decision is not up to me at this point.
What you ARE doing is calling attention to the fact that you have a heavy investment in getting this out of the News forum and I'm sure there are some readers wondering just WHY that is.
ping-a-roony
~”Yet you posted on that thread, and never once asked that it be removed.”~
Indeed. We become wiser as we become older.
~”I find it curious that you label this thread as “anti-Mormon.””~
I did not. I did say that anti-Mormonism is the topic. I suppose one could make the argument that anti-Mormons are activists - that has certainly been my experience. But such an argument still does not qualify the topic for News/Activism.
I agree, there does seem to be a great deal of “loose translation” that has happened.
The Finnish and Sa'ami tree cutters must have had this guy alone with them entirely too many times.
I have been saying for a long time that Mitt-flop supporters on FR seem like they are reading from talking points because the way they attack other candidates is much too consistent. (Fred is lazy, looks too old, lacks energy, can't win)..they all give the same spin in their posts. Fortunately most of them come off as intellectually challenged and are easily defeated by presenting evidence and logic. U.S. Army Retired |
So, is it fair to say that you find the national conversation on Mormonism itself to be threatening? Is that what’s really bothering you? Would you prefer that LDS members sit politely and patiently on the sidelines while our faith is being maligned and demeaned in the name of destroying a good candidate? Sorry, I’m not going to roll over like that.
~”...has anything remotely to do with the fact that a Mormon is running for POTUS?”~
Of course it does. People will see Romney and wonder what Mormonism is. If they ask me, I should be prepared to answer. That has nothing to do with political advocacy.
Defense of Mormonism is only a political matter when the anti-Mormons use Mormonism to attack Romney. If they judged his candidacy on the merits, we’d all be singing Kum-Bay-Yah. Alas, trashing Mormonism is a hobby to some; like a shiny new train set, they can’t resist digging their fingers in at every opportunity. Romney simply gave them a good excuse to bring it up.
~”Ummm, no. Myth Romney’s candidacy has provided more than ample non-theological history to torpedo his campaign.”~
I agree that there are plenty of valid reasons to oppose Romney. But if you think that people aren’t trying to use his religion against him, then you need to pay better attention.
As for the rest of your post, I’m not worried. The people who genuinely seek the truth will be glad they found the LDS Church. Those who reject the Church based on lies and specious claims aren’t ready to accept it anyway. Frankly, I’m perfectly happy to trust God in this whole situation.
Thank you.
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.