~”Moses wasn’t a prophet.”~
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.)
My points are very valid. And you can choose to ignore them if you will....I will leave that up to you and your God.
You should be concerned with the percentages, Tant. Because evidence points that they are extremely low..in relationship to gross/net income. From where I sit..the mormon church itself...isn't even giving to charity close to 10%..Prove me wrong.
I will ask again...what exact percentage of gross or net profits are given to charitable causes.......? Maybe you could be just a tad interested in that little hidden fact...IF you are actually looking for TRUTH.
BTW, your current prophet lives in housing valued at over $1.5 million dollars. ( And that's an old estimate..) I'd bet you a mormon steak dinner...that those digs aren't modest. Most would call a $1.5 million dollar house opulent.
It's not healthy for any church to not be open about where their monies are going. And it's not biblical to give...to fallow and dead "ground." We are "charged" to make sure our tithes and offerings are going to good ground. I would think you might question that...???
The mormon church is extremely secretive..and down-right hostile to inquiries about it's commercial endeavor's...Why?
You obviously haven't sincerely prayed about it...as you would have come to the truth.
I will continue to pray that you learn it...
I knew none of that. Interesting.
Get a microscope...and marvel at the snow flakes.
Then tell me there is no God.
~”Prove me wrong.”~
Why? I have no reason to think you’re wrong. We take care of our own first. That keeps many Mormons off the government welfare roles and reduces the emergency assistance required from other organizations, so even if 10% is correct (and given the annual revenues, even 10% is a rather sizable sum of money), it still doesn’t tell the whole story. Did you look at the Perpetual Education Fund like I suggested?
I don’t -care- what percentage of the LDS Church’s funds are given to charitable causes because the LDS Church IS a charitable cause. You may as well ask how much the Red Cross gives to the Salvation Army. I bet it ain’t much.
When we provide aid to others, we usually do it ourselves. We send blankets and food and shelter that WE purchase or produce and process. Our own members clear debris and deliver goods. So, of COURSE that money isn’t donated to other charities. We’re using the resources OURSELVES to help others.
~”BTW, your current prophet lives in housing valued at over $1.5 million dollars.”~
I don’t know about the $1.5 million part, but he does live in an apartment on top of a church-owned building next to Temple Square. Being a penthouse in the downtown of a metropolitan area, the book value, of course, will soar. Just ask New Yorkers how much an apartment there costs to buy. Hinckley lives in comfort in a location convenient to his duties. That is not opulence.
~”I’d bet you a mormon steak dinner...”~
Tell me, just what is a “Mormon steak dinner?”
~”It’s not healthy for any church to not be open about where their monies are going.”~
It is when there are critics like you about, looking for every little thing you can twist to your own purposes in order to criticize the Church.
I’m sorry, you’re not going to get me on this money stuff. Money is not evil. We have money. We have it because we are industrious and thrifty and the Lord blesses us. We use it to spread our message, meet our needs, bless our people, and to help others in hard times. You can’t prove to me that the theology is wrong; what makes you think your ecclesiastical class-warfare garbage is going to do it?
I swear, half of our critics must be motivated by this ecclesiastical penis envy.
She hasn’t answered.
That's according to you. That person says he KNOWS it's the Holy Spirit telling him that. Since you place the belief that some direct revelation to you is the basis of your faith and that supersedes everything else apparently, by your own rule anything you tell him differently is irrelevant. Just like you say you know the Holy Spirit is telling you Smith was a prophet, the Book of Mormon is true or whatever. From my point of view, based on what I know about the failure of archeology to confirm anything Smith said, and my understanding of the Bible, the Holy Spirit cannot be telling you that.
If such a person were to ask me, I would counsel them to work on their discernment skills.
What exactly do we mean by discernment skills? I would say testing what you think the Holy Spirit is telling you - against the Bible, and against objective evidence such as archeology. In that respect, LDS spectacularly fails. But you seem to reject such tests, if I'm understanding you, on the grounds that the Holy Spirit tells you otherwise and that trumps everything else.
You may look at something different for your discernment. You may feel the Mormon church is full of nice caring people or you think God has done something in your life. That's not sufficient.
Peter, for example, knew that Jesus was the Christ not because man had told him, but because God the Father had revealed it to him - he had knowledge from an unseen source.
I don't consider Peter, an Apostle, or the various prophets to be an example for us. They were special. Of course you would say differently, since you think the Holy Spirit tells you.
Most of us have to be like the Bereans:
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
Acts 17:11
God generally shows us the miracles or gives us the knowledge -after- we have exercised faith.
That may be true, but I'm talking about where the initial faith comes from. For many people an essential part of that is when they conclude by evidence and logic that the Bible is believable - based on fulfilled prophecies, archeology and other EXTERNAL evidence, among other things. It may not be the only part of it, but it often is an important part.
We seek to be instructed by the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost is an excellent teacher to the willing pupil.
There's nothing wrong with that. But again see my above point on discernment. That's why any supposed new doctrine that conflicts with the Bible is automatically out, based on the discernment test.
~”From my point of view, based on what I know about the failure of archeology to confirm anything Smith said, and my understanding of the Bible, the Holy Spirit cannot be telling you that.”~
OK, you’re certainly welcome to your viewpoint.
~”What exactly do we mean by discernment skills?”~
I mean the ability to recognize and distinguish good/true from evil/false. The Bible teaches us how to do this in Galatians chapter 5.
~”I would say testing what you think the Holy Spirit is telling you - against the Bible, and against objective evidence such as archeology. In that respect, LDS spectacularly fails.”~
No, it doesn’t. But that is a whole different discussion.
~”But you seem to reject such tests, if I’m understanding you, on the grounds that the Holy Spirit tells you otherwise and that trumps everything else.”~
That is partly true. I will believe God over man every time. Thanks for pointing that out. Man has wisdom that is valuable, and which should be sought out. But archeology, like any science, is changing its mind all the time. Why should I believe in fickle archeology in the face of the testimony of the Holy Ghost?
~”I don’t consider Peter, an Apostle, or the various prophets to be an example for us. They were special.”~
They were human just like us. The same opportunities available to them are available to us, as long as we are worthy of those opportunities as they were. Otherwise, God would be a respecter of persons, and you don’t think that do you?
Therefore, the same Holy Spirit that testified to them will testify to us - if we are willing to listen and obey.
The Bereans had it right, too. God often speaks to us through the scriptures - there are many times where I’ve had my mind enlightened by a scripture. It’s not the words of the scripture - I’ve read it before. It’s the testimony and guidance of the Holy Spirit, which I need at that particular juncture in my life.
~”...but I’m talking about where the initial faith comes from.”~
Faith comes from a desire to believe. It is later replaced by knowledge. Here’s an excellent treatise on the topic:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/32
The most germane portion begins at verse 17.
~”For many people an essential part of that is when they conclude by evidence and logic that the Bible is believable - based on fulfilled prophecies, archeology and other EXTERNAL evidence, among other things.”~
That’s fine. Ironically, though, I have a more sure knowledge than they that the Bible is true, because I’ve received that testimony by the voice of the Holy Spirit.
In the spirit of further irony, it’s amazing to me that many Christians reject the Book of Mormon. The BoM testifies of Christ, and does nothing but reinforce the words of the Bible. If you believe in Christ, you believe in the words of the Book of Mormon, whether or not you mean to.
~”That’s why any supposed new doctrine that conflicts with the Bible is automatically out, based on the discernment test.”~
Here’s the rub: you are basing that judgment on the interpretations of man - what man has said the Bible means. What if man’s interpretation is wrong? The Bible is true, but what if it’s saying something different than what man has decided it says?
Additional scripture gives us the context necessary to discern the true interpretation of the Bible from the false, man-made interpretation.
There is not a single doctrine of the LDS Church that conflicts with the Bible. There are doctrines of the LDS Church that conflict with traditional interpretations of the Bible. The question for you, then, is why do you choose to believe the traditional interpretations?
Most of us have to be like the Bereans:
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
Acts 17:11
***
Is what the Bible teaches?
It is not the word according to Bereans, isn’t it the word according to Jesus Christ.
Was it not Jesus who came to earth to teach us the way?
In the Bible it is very clear how we are to receive the word of God; to whom we are to pray Heavenly Father in whose name we are to ask Jesus Christ!
In the Bible we are told it is the Holy Ghost who is the Comforter and who will teach us all things.
John 14
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (Jesus tells us the Father is greater than him yet they are ONE IN MIND as we are to be one in mind).
John 15
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.(Here Jesus tells us we were there in the beganning and when we die we return from whence we came)
It is up to us to have ears to hear our master voice and eyes to see our Lord words which by the power of the Holy Ghost will bear witness to us!
We that are his have no doubt and recognizing our master’s voice!
Luke 12: 12
12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.
There is no confusion!
If you get a feeling of fear and forboden that is not how the Lord teaches, those elements are not used by the Lord on his flock.
Gal. 5: 19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
These are the fruits of the Lord
Gal. 5: 22-26
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
OO, based on my experience with protestant ministers, you might be better concerned with what your current minister, priest, pastor or preacher does with his sticky fingers than what our folks do with ours. Basically, it really isn’t any of your business. None. Zip. Nada.
Intellectual and Spiritual integrity is faithfully demonstrated in your post.
Well Said!
An inquiring mind would like to know. What do you mean by traditional interpretations of the Bible? Do you mean the translation by scholars from the original language (Greek, for instance) into English? Or do you mean how we interpret what the Bible says, in its English form?
Or do you mean something else?
~”What do you mean by traditional interpretations of the Bible?”~
While some errors can be traced to incorrect translation, I generally mean how mankind has chosen to interpret the Bible. For example, the Council of Nicea is typical of how these traditional interpretations have come about. Other dogmas have developed more organically over time.
Some of the results of this evolution are supportable by scripture, albeit mistaken (for example, the Doctrine of the Trinity); others are extra-Biblical entirely or almost entirely (for example, the Rapture).
Thanks for the question!
The mormons started teaching about a holy spirit less than 30 years ago.....
"They were human just like us. The same opportunities available to them are available to us, as long as we are worthy of those opportunities as they were."
Admin Moderator...
The last line of Post # 506 by tantiboh contains objectional material...
Please check it...
Thank you...
Tennessee Nana
This particular FR "debate" has been running on raw emotions and blind vitriol for waaaay too long....
Blessings...
Thanks for your quick response. I was only wanting to know what you meant by “traditional interpretation”. By also offering examples of “incorrect interpretations”, and controversial ones at that, I fear you are only trying to stir the pot.
PSALMS 37:11 "But the meek shall inherit the earth;
That is certainly not 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.