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.)
Shows how much YOU know!
Your kidding, right? ROFLOL!! You guy's are really a hoot and a half.
Open hostility??? Please point out a hostile comment.
You guy's can't see the forest...for the trees.
It's completely obvious to me...that you've never really sincerely prayed about it...because if you had, you would have been shown the Truth.
Something is seriously wrong with a church that focuses mightily on building a $30-40 ++ BILLION dollar financial empire.
I will continue to pray that your heart's and minds will be opened..to the Truth.
John 12:47-50
47. "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.
48. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.
49. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.
50. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."
He might have had the power to do this (I doubt it, but he COULD call on a GOD who could do it), but, fact is, he DIDN'T do it!
The Bible CLEARLY says FIRE:
1 Kings 18:36-38
36. At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: "O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command.
37. Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again."
38. Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
(Will you now call ME a 'bigot' because I pointed out your error; or thank me for it?)
Nah... give the credit to GOD!
If the Gummint hadn't messed up their little polygamy gambit, there would have been SO many wifeless men, that it would NOT be pretty now!
(Can THIS possibly explain all the GAYS in SF?)
But the OTHERS were RIGHT ON!!!
No WONDER no one wants to vote for him!!
And the one ABOVE this one, #10, says THIS:
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
And #6 and #7 say THIS:
Tell me...
Just WHAT kinds of stuff are lurking in the phrase "and so forth"?
Wow, you really opened my eyes.
Unfortunately, I really don't like what I see.
--------------------------------
Let me offer up an example for you.....
You come over to my house...and try and tell me that Michael Moore is right..and you have umpteen thousand reasons and excuses why.
I tell you, you are so wrong..and I tell you why.
You call me a hostile bigot, and a intolerant anti-Moore non-progressive...
I then tell you to leave, and take your Michael Moore ideas with you......
Is that un-American?
Is that any clearer?
So DISTRIBUTION is ok by you; it's just the PRODUCTION that tends to stick in your throat (ahem)?
Unless you want to go into a TEMPLE, of course.
--MormonDude(I had to clear this up.)
Oops!
Not YOU, SHF!
I was just using a bit of editorial license to fully capture the idea!
Who cares what some Mormon said eons ago.
Or do you also hold each candidate responsible for what the heirarchy of THEIR denomination might have said in the past.
Is McCain responsble for what Pope's massacre of Peruvian indians back in 1456 A.D.??
Is Huckabee responsible for Jones University's banning of interracial dating??
You Romney haters continue to blow my mind with these juvenile statements.
In fact, these attacks sound more like the style of the Soros/Michael-Moore school of derangement.
Stick to the issues, and please stop these antedoctal claims. If you can't come up with a specific, what's the point in throwing out these ad homonim attacks?
That's EXACTLY what MITT said in his Vote FOR me video ad!
Why do you call posting of thinks that are PRINTED IN EVERY BoM out there, an ATTACK???
Are you really this reading impaired or are you INSANE??
I posted LDS Organizational SCRIPTURE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKrdDad3Pk4
Watch this ad.
Notice how Romney moves to the LEFT during it!
tant,
I see your point, but when you wrote...
“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? “
Yes. The board hires and supervises the CEO. I would like
to know if he raised the issue - particularly with his close
ties to the family (being a namesake of Willard Marriott).
To me, it goes beyond his comfort with the business he
oversaw being involved with porn. It goes directly with his
ability to deal with difficult issues that involve conviction
versus relationship. Success versus character.
ampu
First do you agree with the other claims? I particularly liked Joshua stopping the Earth from spinning and the Moon from orbiting. Or did you miss that in your many readings of the Bible.
Post the Scripture please.
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.