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.)
Been a lot of that going around, it appears
Well, in reality, the entire LDS structure rises or is crushed upon the notions of what a 14 yo lad said he saw. So in reality, that makes it the true “first article” of the Mormon creed of creeds--that being the creed of the so-called mass, 100% Apostasy of every Christian church (& the "restoration" which conveniently followed in Smith's carved-out path).
So, Smith-forward has said that ALL the rest of us are corrupt apostates spouting creeds that are an “abomination in His sight.”
(If that’s not critical please show me your compliment repertoire; if that's flattery, maybe Mormons need a basic Manners 101 course)
Have you or do you plan on serving an LDS mission? Have you tithed or given a significant portion of your income to the LDS church?
Does this same church publish the Pearl of Great Price (PoGP)? Does the PoGP label all "Christian sects" as 100% full of "corrupt professors?" Does the PoGP say "ALL" "Christian sects...are wrong?" Does the PoGP say our creeds are "ALL" an "abomination in His sight?"
Do your funds go toward missionaries whose families cannot afford to pay their own way? Do your million missionaries (accumulative total according to LDS PR Web site) have as one of their top 4 lessons to teach the doctrine of the apostasy & restoration? Does this doctrine teach a 100% apostasy of the Christian church by the 4th century? Is this doctrine taught in numerous LDS publications paid for by your (& other LDS) offerings? What about the Book of Mormon? All of the above applies to that material as well...Doesn't the BoM teach that the great "abominable church" will persecute the Saints in the latter days? Doesn't it teach that this "church is of the devil?" Doesn't it teach that there's only 2 churches, one of which the LDS church says is the Church of the Lamb...thereby pinpointing the rest to be the "church of the devil?"
And yet you have the nerve to claim you don't attack us?
Just think of it: LDS are training & sending almost 70,000 some world-wide missionaries to go door-to-door, where the training inherently focuses on the doctrine of apostasy…that’s 70,000 daily “hit pieces” at the door each delivered dozens of times per week!!! Jehovah's Witnesses who go door to door are called "publishers" (& that's essentially what LDS missionaries are).
Look at what your offerings toward LDS publishing does: Your $ has gone toward publishing & distributing world-wide millions of copies of the Pearl of Great Price...including multiple-language translations? Just go to Elsie’s post #720 to re-examine what your tithe is paying for description-wise of the non-Mormon churches in their entirety. Wanna explain how Mormons labeling all Christians as “apostates” is any different than Muslims who label all Christians as “infidels?”
As for the Book of Mormon reference above, your same offering $ has gone toward this same worldwide publishing & door-to-door distribution of it. What about the 1 Nephi 14 description that the non-Mormon church at-large is the “whore” church—-the great abominable church? More "flattery?"
I can tell that you are a female.
My wife also wants the last word in any discussions we have.
I have found that it is wise to let her have the last word.
Actually, I enjoy immensely supporting a candidate like Mitt Romney who is espousing the conservative principals in which I believe.
Unlike the Mitt bashers who don't even seem to HAVE a candidate.
Whom do you support, may I ask?
PS -- have you noticed all the good respectable conservative leaders in this great nation who support and respect Mitt Romney? (no sense listing them all again)
Or have they all been "bought off" like the Romney-derangement-syndrome crowd claims?
(It's nice to know you have 2 "fallback" ways of dealing with conflict or challenges in relationships:)
(1) Practice sexism where you can elitely allow your perceived male supremacy to kick in...that way your tender ego won't be damaged when you don't know how to answer your wife...
(2) Hit the male silent button. (That way whatever you said previously doesn't need any accountability...I mean who are you, a future god, that you actually have to answer any vacant claims from the peasant class?)
My Wife stops with the discussion when she gets the last word.
I can see that you carry on.
(Oh, I'm sorry. With this silly e-manner of communication, we couldn't all see your wave of your god-in-embryo hand. We join your wife in now bowing in humble obeisance, oh future divine one...and a great silence arose in FReeperville for about 30 minutes...in keeping with John's vision in Revelation).
No, I thought you ladies wanted the last word.
I am giving it to you.
Action wished: Elsie; take time DEFENDING yourself from all of our scurrilous charges.
Results: Quack, quack - is it raining?
WHAT!!??
You got ONE serious case of DENIAL goin' on!
Yup!!
Even us MORMONS have done a MIGHTY lot of that!!
--MormonDude(Check it OUT! ---> http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/mormonsects.html )
Yup!
Especially when we've run out of things to say defending against the truth.
--MormonDude(Them FUNDAMENTALIST Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints folks ain't really Mormons...)
Uh...
Looks like you do, too!
Wow!
When did your tagline line change?
Elsie's right, GF! I like your new tagline outfit! (Did you get it for Christmas? How long did it take to unwrap?) :)
Yeah!!
Check it out!!
--MormonDude(FAIRLDS says so!)
Is that because you are not a Christian, but rather a follower of the teachings of the Pagan Lawyer Tertulian?
ROFLOL!!
This is rich.....
In one sentence you backhandedly accuse another of what you did in the preceding sentence....
Are you guys trained in this tactic?
I've had some mormons here....tell me, they only pick out what they think applies to them.
Is that what that article of "faith" means?
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.