If you can't, you are doing it because you are a bigot and not a follower of the Lord.
Who are you to make that judgement, "You are not a follower of the Lord"? Are you a follower of Joseph Smith?
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.)
What do you think the Bible means by the word “meek”?
Tantiboh, I consider you a principled person (& that's meant to be a compliment). And while you say this I take it to mean that you "condemn" pro-Mormons who back Romney for Mormon reasons in principle. I'm not omnipresent on these threads, so I'm sure you could prove me wrong...but my first impression was to say, "I've never seen Tantiboh specifically condemn any such person for this reason..." whereas we've seen all kinds of Mormon posters made specific condemnations for the other side of graybeard's comment.
I looked in the Bible Dictionary and it said see kindness, humility, patience. It doesn't say "Mormon Bashers."
It also refers to those who follow the Lord. It doesn't say anything about the trinity. I am sure that Elijah doesn't say anything about the trinity either when he called down lightning from Heaven.
They must be backing him for his Mormonism because his liberalism has been proven repeatedly on this forum.
What were you saying about "un-American" Jim?
Wow, you really opened my eyes.
Unfortunately, I really don't like what I see.
Not that you care, I suppose.
But man, talk about the my-way or the hi-way segment of the conservative crowd.
Somehow I don't think that is the wisest way to build or develop political consensus or support.
Well, how do you like this twist of Sevenbak's? Elsie & him are having a discussion on the apartment security of the LDS "prophet." Elsie basically asks why the need for such heavy security reinforcement in these times.
Sevenbak responds by mentioning two individuals & two extended families...but links them all back to the shoot-out Smith had while he was in jail for vandalizing & destroying a printing press. Sevenbak then wraps up his point in a bow by linking the problem of LDS leaders being threatened back to one of hatred by, you guessed it, ALL men (citing of Luke passage).
So you would think, by Sevenbak's take of this, that it was primarily (but not only) the non-Mormon world out there that was so threatening, right?
Not so fast. Rewind the tape for a replay here. Let's take what Sevenbak implies under review. Oh sure, Sevenbak is sure to mention "breakaway polygamy groups." He mentions the Laffertys, for instance...But the Laffertys, though heavily influenced by the D&C revelations on polygamy, weren't as their first motivation simply wanting to start a new polygamous outbreak.
But worse than that, let's take "under review" the specific names Sevenbak mentions:
Since Sevenbak says, "start with the murder of...Smith and go forward," of course, we all know the attack on the jailhouse was not conducted by Mormons. But what you may not realize is that the two individuals he names, Mark Hoffman & Cody Judy were both LDS & a disfellowshipped LDS, respectively.
And then, of course, the two families he mentions are indeed from Mormon fundamentalist families...but the direct tie to the LDS church isn't obvious on the surface in the case of he Laffertys. In fact, many of the Laffertys were fine upstanding LDS members in the 80s!!!
Watson Lafferty, Sr., was a Provo resident who did out-of-US mission trips on behalf of the LDS church. One of his sons, Ron, "was a Highland [Utah] city concilman and a stalwart of the local LDS congregation, where he had been appointed First Counselor to the bishop and was a leader of youth activities." (Jon Krakauer, UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN, chapter 13).
Another of his sons, Allen, was married to a woman (Brenda) who anchored a TV news mag program on KBYU.
As for Ron's brother, Dan Lafferty, "although Dan had not yet allied himself with any established fundamentalist church or prophet, his self-directed studies had transformed him into a de facto Mormon fundamentalist...the more he studied historical Mormon documents, the more certain Dan became that the LDS Church had blundered off course around 1890, when then-president and prophet Wilford Woodruff was coerced into doing away witht he doctrine of plural marriage...The modern LDS Church, Dan had become convinced, was an elaborate fraud." (Krakauer, chapter 12)
Dan started having discussions with LDS leader (brother) Ron: "Dan argued with great passion that the LDS Church had taken a wrong turn when it abandoned polygamy...Ron tried to refute Dan's arguments, point by point, by quoting scripture from the Bible and Book of Mormon. Dan would counter with points of his own drawn from the same texts, as well as from the Constitution. 'Ron wasn't at that meeting too awfully long,' as Dan remembers it, 'before he stopped trying to convince us we were wrong. 'What you guys are doing is right.' he admitted. 'It's everyone else who is wrong.' In the space of a few hours, Dan had converted Ron from a dutiful Saint into a fire-breathing Mormon fundamentalist." (Krakauer, chapter 13)
Ron, Dan, Mark, Watson, Jr., and Tim Lafferty (but not Allen) all joined a "school of prophets" not tied to the LDS church, but which emphasized "personal revelations." As a result of a "personal revelation" to Ron Lafferty, the ex First Counselor to a Highland, Utah bishop, Lafferty convinced most of his brothers that sister-in-law Brenda Lafferty and her daughter should be murdered.
The bottom line in all of this? Sevenbak points a finger at the non-Mormon world for their need for heavy LDS security when, in fact, by his own admission, it's not "ALL" men who have been particularly troublesome. Rather, it's been LDS people like Mark Hoffman who would meet in LDS HQ with some of the highest LDS leaders. It was an ex-LDS murderer like Ron Lafferty who was once a First Counselor to a local bishop. It was a couple of ex-LDS people who ran for public office, Cody Judy, and Dan Lafferty. It was the polygamous Mormon fundamentalist Allred clan.
(No wonder there's something to the saying that for every finger you point, there's several more pointing right back atcha).
Colofornian, I’ve never seen a person around here say that they support Romney because he is a Mormon. I’m sure they are here, but I can’t make such baseless accusations. Feel free to ping me if you find one.
I have, however, seen some Romney opponents say flat-out that they cannot support a Mormon. I do give such people credit for their honesty.
I have encountered two people in real life that have said that they support Romney for religious reasons. In both cases, I have done what I could to correct them. I suppose you’ll just have to take my word for it in this case. Most Mormons I know are just as disinterested in politics as most of the rest of America. There is a sense of a heightened profile for the Church as a result of his candidacy, and we do chuckle amongst ourselves at incidents such as Huckabee’s Jesus-and-Satan question. Other than that, we’re pretty much ignoring the situation as much as any other group.
There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose Romney; and there are plenty of valid reasons to support him. It makes no sense to drag religion into the picture, save to advance an ulterior motive that does not belong in American politics.
To be perfectly candid, it is an enormous temptation to me to look forward to his victory for the sake of the schadenfreude I will almost certainly feel toward those who have spent so much time slandering what I hold sacred and dear. Alas, I am imperfect; but it is not a factor upon which I made my decision. Frankly, I’d have preferred Thompson, had he been a more effective campaigner.
You need a different Bible dictionary.
Very good point. (And I'm glad you mention this yet again).
Tantiboh, here for the longest of time you seemed to weigh carefully whether or not to support Romney, like a good principled person...but then in some posts seemed to communicate almost that it was exactly because Romney was being attacked for his faith that seemed to be one reason (not the only reason, mind you) that you wanted to come behind him & support him.
So, Graybeard's point is important. Beyond whatever reasons for your support, Tantiboh, it sure seems strange to many of us--Graybeard & myself at this point--why so many Mormons who are...
(1)...anti-porn would support a candidate who accepted $25,000 + stock for a decade in serving as a board member for a venue of the porn industry. Even the Deseret News pointed out the seeming hypocrisy, of him taking some of his earnings from the profits of in-room porn.
(2)...pro-life would take his pro-life statements at such face value when even in 2007 he has made numerous terribly confusing statements about what he was in previous years.
(3)...against same-sex marriage would support the man who let it slip on his MA watch...who supports civil unions for homosexual couples...who supports taxpayer-funded domestic partnership benefits for homosexual couples...who supports forcing businesses to hire those with alternative sexual practices--including Christian-based businesses...???
(Anyway, I could on in this vein). It's not just Mormon FREEPER-posters but when I read the Utah newspapers & see all the reader comments of those who tell of their Romney support & are sure to mention "Mormon haters" it tells me there's awful lot of Mormon support for Romney--including even generic ra-ra support from LDS HQ--despite his liberal & untrustworthy social stances. When we ask why, the first suspect has to be: Is it his Mormonism?
Sorry, guys, but until the presiding bishop (I believe that’s what he’s called) has a vision and accepts orthodox Trinitarian Christianity, Mormons will not be Christian, any more than Muslims are.
They won’t be Catholic, they won’t be Orthodox, they won’t be Trinitarian Protestant. They won’t be orthodox Christians. This is up to Mormons to decide.
Jesus was a Jew, but he was not an "Orthodox" Jew.
If we believed the same as you, we would belong to your church.
Why is it up to you to condem all who don't believe the same as you? Are you the "Christian" Taliban?
The Apostles Creed is orthodox, and so is the Athanasian Creed. Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestants can subscribe to it. Mormons cannot.
Elijah had the power to call down lightning from Heaven. It was within his duties to condemn those who didn't believe the same as him.
My asking if you could call down lightning from Heaven was to see if you had the same power as he did, and then could condemn those who don't believe the same as you.
If you can't, you are doing it because you are a bigot and not a follower of the Lord.
Those came from the writing of the Pagan Lawyer Tertulian.
I believe that since his writing was rejected as heresy by the Bishop of Rome, that the Bishop of Rome didn't believe it either. Is he not Orthodox?
What is the value in being Orthodox if it is false doctrine?
I believe the Bishop of Rome was a better authority on doctrine than the Pagan Lawyer Tertulian.
I have identified with the Baptist Church for most of my adult life, there is a Baptist Minister running and I do not support him. Not because of his faith and not even if he were attacked for his faith. I won’t support him in the primaries because I believe he has too many liberal ways.
“Because of his religion” is a valid reason to not vote for a person. As is, because he’s a liberal.
I will not vote for a Scientilogist, Jehova’s Witness, Hare Krishna, Christian Scientist, Mormon, Branch Davidian and others that I can’t even think of right now and if anyone cares to call me a bigot, so be it. Yes, I could easily vote for someone of the Jewish faith who is conservative. Jews are not pretending to be something that they are not.
Ultimately I will answer to God, not to anyone on this forum. If anyone thinks I’m damned for that, they are welcome to their opinion, just remember that’s all it is, an opinion.
The Apostles Creed is accepted in all contemporary orthodox churches (Catholic, Orthodox and certain Protestant groups).
Mormons are exactly like Muslims: their cult sprouted out from a self-proclaimed “prophet” in a territory that was far from Rome (or Constantinople, or, in the US, from the orthodox Protestant centers). It was violent and aggressive and terrorized people in the places it entered. Mormonism was as aggressive as Islam and had the same theocratic ideals and bizarre Arianism and pagan touches, such as polygamy and spiritualism.
Had it not been for the US Government and its power, the entire US would probably now be Mormon. This is one of the few occasions I have had to say thanks for the US Government.
If you can't, you are doing it because you are a bigot and not a follower of the Lord.
Who are you to make that judgement, "You are not a follower of the Lord"? Are you a follower of Joseph Smith?
You’ve listed some accusations that became, ironically, part of the reason that I support Romney. Last summer, Romney was accused of many things. I looked into those things and found out - guess what - they were generally unfair accusations. There’s a bit of a boy-who-cried-wolf mentality for me now when people criticize Romney.
1.) He worked for a hotel chain. Most hotel chains offer pornography in their rooms. By calling it a “venue of the porn industry,” you turn it into an unfair attack. It’s only a venue of the porn industry if the customer chooses to purchase the porn. Since I’m sure you’re not that kind of customer, it amazes me that you choose to twist this as you do.
2.) I concede that his past positions on abortion have bothered me some. To be honest, I was ironically biased at first against Romney because I feel that a former stake president should know better than to have a pro-choice public policy. Still, for whatever reasons, he moved in the correct direction over time, so I was willing to extend the benefit of the doubt. It was nevertheless a major reason that I held off on my decision for so long while I examined Thompson.
3.) That is a blatant misrepresentation. You know very well that Romney fought as hard and creatively as he could, but had no legal way to oppose judicial fiat. The unfortunate fact is that a governor must administer the law, and gay marriage - despite Romney’s best efforts - became law. Frankly, Romney’s efforts probably set the gay agenda back by a year or more. I don’t hold the issue against him in the least, and it’s a silly issue for any conservative to hold against him.
~”(Anyway, I could on in this vein).”~
You could, and I’ve heard them all, researched them all, and determined that nine out of ten of such accusations are either unfounded or unfair, and many of the rest are generally mere nitpicking. As I learned this, all these criticisms led me to see that Romney is really a pretty good candidate in his own right, and as Thompson showed that he couldn’t meet the expectations he’d ginned up for himself, I joined the Romney camp. That was October.
As an aside, I’ve got it all logically laid out in my mind exactly why I support Romney. I’ve not yet written it down comprehensively. I’ve challenged certain anti-Romney people in the recent past to ask me what those reasons were, and they’ve yet to take me up on it. I find it interesting.
~”It’s not just Mormon FREEPER-posters but when I read the Utah newspapers”~
Like you, I have a hard time taking a lot of Utah Mormons seriously. Like the anti-Mormon bigots, though, I would submit that the pro-Mormon bigots are more vociferous than numerous. Most of us are just as apathetic as the rest of America.
~”...including even generic ra-ra support from LDS HQ...”~
I would like to see evidence of that, if you don’t mind. I am aware that Romney met early on in the campaign with one of the Quorum of the Twelve; and that there were some initial noises about founding a PAC at BYU, which was subsequently squelched by LDS leadership. As for a “general ra-ra” from the top of the LDS Church, I am seriously skeptical.
“1.) He worked for a hotel chain. Most hotel chains offer pornography in their rooms. By calling it a “venue of the porn industry,” you turn it into an unfair attack. It’s only a venue of the porn industry if the customer chooses to purchase the porn. Since I’m sure you’re not that kind of customer, it amazes me that you choose to twist this as you do.”
More accurately, it is all about MONEY for the hotel chain.
Reports are that in room porn at places like the Marriott
generate 5-10% of GROSS total revenue.
Those of us who oppose it accurately point out that as a
board member, Mitt did nothing but be glad for the revenue.
Apparently, he was very comfortable with the presence of porn as
revenue generator, since he stayed and served and cashed his
director’s comp checks - 5-10% of which represented comp
from porn!
ampu
I worship and follow Jesus Christ.
The 11th article of faith of the Church says: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own concience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
You may be a bigot if you want. Nobody, including me, can condemn you for that.
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.