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.)
I don't defend Mormonism. I simply like to point out the hypocrisy of those attacking Mormonism. I know that is a hard concept for you to understand, but please try.
You who looks into a pencil holder on his desk to look for God, sees a pencil holder and denies the existence of the pencil holder designer.
Intelligent design? Then why did God fill our DNA with crap? I will toss you a bone though, check out Penrose and his nanotube theory, you will thank me if you do. I may lose my membership in the Atheist society for telling you that :(
You’re a piece of work you are. Do you ever have an adult discussion or even try to? (sigh)
I would like too, but there doesn't seem to be any mature people around here.
www.apologeticspress.org/articles/343
Elsie, this Christian apologetics site covering the Lord’s Supper pretty much lines up with my understanding of it.
We are not under law; I consider it a devotional remembrance event; the frequency of the practice varies within the Christian community at large.
Sounds like you are not free to abstain from any sin whatsoever. I am sorry that you feel that way. I, on the other hand, have been given a choice by my Heavenly Father. Since it is obvious that the Lord wants us to choose the right, I try to do so.
Are you free not to rob a bank? Are you free not to murder another person?
Actually that is extremely close to Mormon beliefs, except for possibly the spiritual enslavement.
His glorious presence departed. Somehow you think that somebody can be "innocent" even tho the Source of that innocense has departed.
I think this is the crux of your argument. You seem to define 'sin' as the absence of God. Mormons on the other hand would define 'death' (both physical and spiritual) as the absence of God. And as Adam brought separation (death) from God, Christ reunited man and God with his atonement.
Now doesn't that make more sense than your silly original sin stuff?
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...
Let me change the terms a little to try and explain the Mormon perspective to you. The highest goal of Mormons is to be at one with God (which is symbolically the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom). That is the whole purpose of the Temple Ceremony. All that is necessary to achieve that, because of Christs Atonement, is simply not turning away from God. Turning away from God is what Mormons regard as sin. Little children can't turn away from God.
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.
I think this illustrates the difference between the Mormons and the born agains. The Mormon would save all the women ^^
I wonder what a 'good' Atheist is?
You are a little hypocrite aren't you? Posting to me like crazy and telling others not to. I simply state the truth and everyone runs away screaming :)
I suppose you like a God that condemns innocent little babies to hell?
I know that good, sincere, Christians believe that and my purpose here is not to attack them. Please accept my sincere apology if you are one of them.
On the other hand, if you believe in the doctrine of original sin. Then you do believe that babies are born evil and unless they get born again they are going to hell. I can think of few doctrines more evil than that.
***I wonder what a ‘good’ Atheist is?***
She didn’t say what a “good atheist” was. She said that Mormons and catholics made the “best atheists”.
I saw the show.
Obviously, in Christ there is freedom.
Outside of him, the freedom is always limited.
Yes, a dog, for example has freedom to walk around. But his "turf" is limited by his leash...just like the sin nature limits folks.
I am sorry that you feel that way. I, on the other hand, have been given a choice by my Heavenly Father. Since it is obvious that the Lord wants us to choose the right, I try to do so.
Your recent LDS prophet Kimball said in a book, The Miracle of Forgiveness, that you have never truly repented of a sin if you commit that sin again. So even the "choice" you think you have when you have personally repented of winds up only you to lock you up again. (Now I don't believe that Kimball's statement is complete & I frankly take issue with the outworkings of that; but I mention it to show you that even the "free" choice you think you have is often negated by future "free" choices...even your own prophets acknowledge that).
Are you free not to rob a bank? Are you free not to murder another person?
Again, is a dog "free" to eat the food & drink the water placed before him? (Yes) Does the collar & leash keep him from trespassing on others' property (Yes) Does that mean he's free? (No)
Good point about the propensity to sin being the same as sinning, for our corruption is so deep that it is more than just original sin, even for babies. I stand corrected.
Yep, this is a religion thread.
There is no such thing as modern revelation, and the reason why so many of you accept it is that it tickles the ear.
It is what you want to hear. But, there is zero evidence it is what God has ordained and revealed.
So, you claim not to be free. Okay, if that is how you wish to live your life, go ahead. However, unless you are doing all the things that Jesus Christ commanded, such as clothing the naked and feeding the hungry, caring for widows and orphans and loving one another, you are deluding yourself because you have chosen not to be obedient to The Lord.
If you call Joseph Smith marrying 9 to 11 women already married to other men as "saving" them...or convincing a 14 yr old named Kimball that by marrying him her entire family would be saved...then I have to disagree with you. (Nor do I think that polygamy for eternity, a doctrine LDS still believe since they believe all past LDS polygamists are still so plurally married in eternity, is a "salvific" act conducted by a husband on behalf of his eternal harem).
Actually that is extremely close to Mormon beliefs, except for possibly the spiritual enslavement.
Please see my post #410 for 2 key New Testament passages on enslavement.
A small correction to your header, as another FReeper critic of the Mormon church noted:
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's not what I said. Jesus clarifies this for us:
"So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:36)
And thank you for the reminder about what "pure religion" is...(and timely, too)...as we make "resolutions" or "intentions" for '08, we all should be reminded how easy it is to lose our compass of who we are to be oriented to...for the Lord himself identifies with those whom you mention:
However, unless you are doing all the things that Jesus Christ commanded, such as clothing the naked and feeding the hungry, caring for widows and orphans and loving one another, you are deluding yourself because you have chosen not to be obedient to The Lord.
Amen, Old Mountain Man...Mormons are at least a constant (good) reminder to us that we are to be doers of the Word & not just sayers!
Thank you my friend! I wish you a Happy New Year and joy in your life!
“Just makes one wonder how many noble and honorable lurkers from all over who are witnessing this conservative meltdown! and our enemies are really getting an eyeful”
Then we better make sure everything we post is backed up with the proper scripture from the Bible in order to be a blessing to them...
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.