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.)
Then show me a scripture that says babies aren't born in sin and are saved if they die. I think you know the scriptures that say otherwise.
Face it. You believe in some barbaric rituals and beliefs. Why do you think Priests sprinkle baby's with Holy Water. They used to do it with blood.
If I were you, I would think twice about attacking other peoples religions.
Yes, cattle ranches. 100's of thousands of acres of them.
Do you know how many head of cattle the mormon church processes every year?
Do you know the PERCENTAGE that goes to charity. Less than 3%....
The point being....you and the mormon church talks a good game...Points out when it is giving, but's it's the proverbial drop in the bucket.
It's BIG TIME.....symbolism over substance.
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.
Bait & Switch
We'd LIKE to attack yours; but you claim to have none!
Since you have no dog in this fight, your claims of wanting EVERYONE to be EQUALLY attacked rings a bit strange.
Have you ever wondered why...there are very few, IF any biblical scholars in the general authority? It's all about LDS, Inc. They are mostly law/economic/finance/banking types......
Once again...LDS Inc. is about building portfolio's, shopping malls, Maui hotels, and restaurants. That's called laying up your treasures here on earth...IMO.
You can't have it both ways!!
So this WELFARE stuff is PAID for by the recipients?
Shows how much YOU know!
From your profile: "17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!'
That really shows that he was an Orthodox Jew. Was he a Pharisee or Sadducee?
If he was Orthodox, why did they claim he was blasphemous, and why did they put him to death.
You are correct. I should have reviewed it before posting.
Thank you.
One last thing....IF, all is on the up and up..and for the sake of open disclosure, honesty, truth..etc..LDS, Inc. should make public the total pounds of beef produced..and the total given away.
If there's nothing to hide....then let's see the books.
Ain't gonna happen...unless they are forced to. Too much at $take.
You seem to be the one attacking religious beliefs, LeGrand. You can believe what you like but my God doesn’t send babies to hell because they are innocent. They don’t have accountability until they’re older and understand the concept and what they’re doing.
The big DNA question for me ...
***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.****
Well, since I wasn’t on the scene I have to consider it may have been light refraction, comet or many other “natural” things. To the man on the ground it appeared the sun may have stopped and they reported it as such.
Many years ago Ripley’s believe it or Not stated that one morning in Scotland TWO suns came up. Probably ight refraction, the same thing that caused a sundial to move backwards.
You are welcome.
I have posted things that I thought were correct, and then found out my rememberer was out of tune.
No.
It is obvious that you already are familiar with our beliefs, so you are not trying to learn anything.
You are just bashing.
Is that because you are not a Christian, but rather a follower of the teachings of the Pagan Lawyer Tertulian?
Translation: "Elsie, you are just bashing, ya pagan disciple, ya" (he said quite unabashedly but quite bashingly!)
That is not Bashing, it is just acknowledging what you believe.
The 11th article of faith of the Church says: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
I certainly don't criticize your beliefs.
For pity sake.
Everything that I have stated is substantiated.
Defending Mitt must suck when there is an Internet.
No they don't.
the sky being a dome
This is symbolic language, which is quite clear in reading the context of the passage in question. In reading the author's response to the question, it is clear the Mormon 'prophesy' about people on the sun and moon was not meant symbolically.
Why would McCain care? (He's not Catholic!!!)
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 Huckabee responsible for Jones University's banning of interracial dating?? You Romney haters continue to blow my mind with these juvenile statements. [Rock&Roll Republican]
Talk about unsophisticated & less than insightful understanding of the dynamics involved here! Since when has what some Protestant hierarchy said been added after the book of Revelation as a “new revelation from God?”
Do you know the authoritative difference between an opinion and what is portended to be the “Word of God?”
Do you know the authoritative difference between a commentary and what is portended to be as “Scripture?”
Do you know the authoritative difference between a sermon preached somewhere in a popeless Protestantism and the First Vision of LDS’ faith, upon which its entire foundation rests? (No First Vision, no LDSism!)
Elsie didn’t cite mere LDS leaders’ sermonic opinions or conjectures. In post #720 he cited LDS “revelation”—the most important LDS “revelation” I might add. He cited LDS “Scripture”—which is currently adhered to by true-believing Mormons everywhere to this very minute!!!
LDS don't have the luxury of taking or leaving these passages. They bear the weight & authority as...
(1) LDS "Scripture"
(2 Alleged Direct revelation from God
(3) The very foundation of the Mormon faith (the First Vision)
(4) One of the top three doctrines in which LDS missionaries are trained to teach (the doctrine of the apostasy & restoration). I would even say it's No. 1 because if there's no 100% apostasy, then there's no need for a restoration. (Oh reformation...sure...the church has always & is always seemingly in need of that).
Smith never pretended that this was only his opinion. He claimed to speak for God on this matter.
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.