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.)
You speak about religion as if it were some sort of civic association. If good transcends a religion then the religion is false.
Did you disappear?
1) Gun grabber
2) Homo supporter
3) Advocates baby killing
4) Liar
5) Tax raiser
6) Liberal
7) Illegal alien criminal facilitator
You have no answer for Mittens?
Once again, it was part of a private entity’s business model, and subject to the free agency of the customer. I just don’t see how it’s a valid criticism. If Romney were involved in the porn-production industry, I would have a problem.
Let’s say you go out and buy a mutual fund that specializes in the hospitality industry, knowing full well that up to 10% of the hospitality industry’s gross profits are derived from pornography viewership. The economy is good, people are going on vacations, and you make excellent dividends on your investment before you sell your interest in the mutual fund and enjoy the capital gain.
I come up to you, jab my finger in your face, and say “Way to go, bucko, you’re profiting from pornography!”
Would my criticism be fair?
Now, you may say, “But, Romney was on the chain’s board.” So? Did he have the influence necessary to stop the sales to which you object? After all, you had the power to influence the hospitality by not buying their stock. Would that have changed their business practices? No, not until you got enough people on your side. That’s cold reality.
What amazes me is that this argument is presented by Colofornian in the context that we Mormons should be particularly offended. This argument displays a lack of understanding of LDS belief - where free agency is paramount. That customers would make an immoral choice as patrons of a legitimate business is between them and God. In this sense, Mormons tend to be more libertarian than many mainstream Christians - it’s built into our theology.
~”If good transcends a religion then the religion is false.”~
Now, I am no dummy, but... Huh??
Satan seldom made a 100% false assertion. He often mixes his lie in with more truth than lie. The idea that a false religion can be a force for good is entirely an earthly perspective. Baha’is are good people, as are devout Buddhists. Don’t hold it against the poster that he cannot see that is earthly evaluation.
~”Don’t hold it against the poster that he cannot see that is earthly evaluation.”~
The presidency is an earthly office. An earthly evaluation is appropriate.
Yet another breach of FR protocol by MHG. It’s almost quaint now.
Will they be Jewish?
Can't have any non-Trinitarian Jewish folks in the government, now can we??
How will we ever trust them?
/sarc
#1, at least a Jewish POTUS can call upon the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob in a crisis situation.
Standard-wise, while not every founding father was a trinitarian Christian, I can't think of any wild-eyed cultists among them, either. (For example, I don't think any of them expected godhood awaiting them post-this life)
Do you have a specific case where Romney grabbed someone’s guns?
Or where he raised taxes substantially (not just a minor fee here and there, which are always being added and withdrawn in state governments, even by the most rock-ribbed conservative leaders, including Ronald Reagan, Haley Barbour, GWB in Texas, and others)
And your “illegal alien facilitator” claim is laughable, considering that YOU have probably eaten at a restaurant, or had your car washed, at a place which employed illegal aliens unbeknownst to you. (just like Romney’s situation with his lawnkeeper)
Guess that makes YOU an illegal alien facilitator also, does it not?
See how easy it is to make these frivolous claims?
As for “liberal, homo supporter, liar, etc” those are simply antedoctal charges anyone can make without backing or substance.
Tell me YOUR candidate, and I’ll toss out some general charges at them.
Nah, then again, I am not that spiteful toward fellow Republicans.
So if an adult bookstore on the corner sells a number of non-porn items, too, but is, as you describe, part of a private entity's business model, and subject to the free agency of the customer as to whether it will buy either the non-porn or the porn products...as long as your guy is only linked to the non-porn side of that venue...no prob, eh?
Let’s say you go out and buy a mutual fund that specializes in the hospitality industry, knowing full well that up to 10% of the hospitality industry’s gross profits are derived from pornography viewership. The economy is good, people are going on vacations, and you make excellent dividends on your investment before you sell your interest in the mutual fund and enjoy the capital gain.
I can at least tell you #1, that the hostitality industry is quite broad, & includes corporations beyond the hotel/motel industry; secondly, more so than perhaps in the past 15-20 years, there's more hotel/motels--including entire chains...that intentionally don't carry in-room porn...so while there's a heavy prevalence, there's not an automatic 1:1 correlation that you make.
Beyond that, is the "way to go, bucko" comment fair? (In an era when there's multiple investment screens of organizations that will deliberately steer clear of the porn industry...ya better believe it is!!!)
So? Did he have the influence necessary to stop the sales to which you object?
Ya know, ya might try bringing up this argument after you bring up a preceding argument that at least he did raise some public objection. (As the July 10, 2007 Deseret News article shows; he didn't...In fact, his 10-year accumulation from it, and the fact that the LDS HQ had Bill Marriott as a "70" leader, shows exactly what's wrong with your final statement: This argument displays a lack of understanding of LDS belief - where free agency is paramount. That customers would make an immoral choice as patrons of a legitimate business is between them and God. In this sense, Mormons tend to be more libertarian than many mainstream Christians - it’s built into our theology.)
So, LDS HQ wouldn't mind an abortion operator or abortionist as a "70" or as a board member of Planned Parenthood, eh? (Because any woman getting an abortion thru the LDS general authority-abortionist/abortion operator would simply be a "me and God" thing as a patron of a "legitimate" business, eh?)
LDS HQ would welcome aboard casino operations as a "70" eh? (Because the addicted gamblers paying their wage is just exercising "free agency" in their "them & God" thing as a patron of a "legitimate" business, eh?)
What about the owner of an escort service? (That too, is a "legitimate business" in your eyes...maybe that, too, would be no disqualifier to be an LDS bishop, an LDS stake prez, or a "70" because Mormons tend to be more libertarian?
Well, next you're going to tell me with a straight face that since the gambling industry operates quite a number of hotel/motels as a key lynchpin of that industry; and that because the gambling industry operates quite a number of eating establishments; and that because the gambling industry also operates a number of entertainment venues; that the gambling industry is actually only a venue of the gambling industry if the customer chooses to purchase the gambling product. Otherwise (with your straight face still intact), the gambling industry isn't really the gambling industry at all. (Why, it's just the hotel/motel/restaurant/entertainment industry! Of course!!!)
(Oh, & not only that...if I ever had the actual audacity to call any of these venues the "gambling industry, why, you'd just accuse me of turn[ing] it into an unfair attack. Why, you'd say, I was guilty of twist[ing] reality.)
(Who's twisting reality again? And all in the name of "protecting" a candidate?)
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.....
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.....
marked
You’re conflating to ridiculous levels, Colo. We’re not going to agree, and all we’re going to do is whack away at each other. I do not see a problem with Romney’s business dealings as you’ve described them. You do. I suggest we leave it at that.
Your NEED security because them GARMIES don’t protect NOTHING!!!
What YOU consider to be BASHING, is merely our "kindness, humility and patience" toward you.
If we didn't value your soul, we wouldn't be wasting OUR time to try to shine the Light upon what your Organization is built.
It's NOT bashing to point to the Bible and prove that your leader was an ignorant, 14 yo farm boy who was deceived by two Angels of Light.
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.
Seems to have WORKED for the MORMONS!
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
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.