Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ANSWERS TO 50 ANTI-MORMON QUESTIONS (LDS SITE FAIR)
FAIR (Foundation for Apologetics Information & Research) ^ | modified December 22, 2007 | FAIR Staff

Posted on 12/29/2007 8:34:35 AM PST by greyfoxx39

 

With the Romney candidacy spurring threads questioning the beliefs of Mormonism on FR, this site will provide the LDS-APPROVED ANSWERS for those who are interested in the debate.

Here are the first fifteen answers. The rest can be found at http://en.fairmormon.org/50_Answers

Two hundred graduating students at Brigham Young University-Hawaii have been urged to use the Internet - including blogs and other forms of "new media" - to contribute to a national conversation about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions

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:

  1. misunderstand or misread LDS doctrine or scripture;
  2. give unofficial material the status of official belief;
  3. assume that Mormons must have inerrantist ideas about scripture or prophets like conservative evangelical Protestants do;
  4. apply a strict standard to LDS ideas, but use a double standard to avoid condemning the Bible or their own beliefs if the standard was applied fairly to both.
 


Questions About LDS Prophets


1. Why does the Mormon church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple built in Missouri in his generation (D&C 84:1-5)

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"


2. Since the time when Brigham Young taught that both the moon and the sun were inhabited by people, has the Mormon church ever found scientific evidence of that to be true? (Journal of Discourses (1870), 13:271)

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.


3. Why did Brigham Young teach that Adam is "our Father and our God" when both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Mor. 9:12) say that Adam is a creation of God? (Journal of Discourses (1852) 1:50))

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.


4. If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses (1854) 2:142-143)

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.


5. Since the Bible's test of determine whether someone is a true prophet of God is 100% accuracy in all his prophecies (Deut. 18:20-22), has the LDS Church ever reconsidered its teaching that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were true prophets?

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.


6. Since the current LDS prophets sometimes contradict the former ones, how do you decide which one is correct?

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.


7. Since there are several different contradictory accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision, how did the LDS Church choose the correct one?

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.


8. Can you show me in the Bible the LDS teaching that we must all stand before Joseph Smith on the Day of Judgment?

This is a misunderstanding and caricature of LDS doctrine. There is, however, the Biblical doctrine that the apostles will help judge Israel:

Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:28-30; see also Matt. 19:28)

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.

Questions About LDS Scripture (excluding the Bible)


9. Can you show me archeological and historical proof from non-Mormon sources that prove that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon are true?

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?


10. If the words "familiar spirit" in Is. 29:4 refer to the Book of Mormon, why does "familiar spirit" always refer to occult practices such as channeling and necromancy everywhere else in the Old Testament?

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.


11. Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (D. & C. 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)

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:


12. Why were the words "white and delightsome" in 2 Nephi 30:6 changed to "pure and delightsome" right on the heels of the Civil Rights campaign for blacks?

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.


13. If God is an exalted man with a body of flesh and bones, why does Alma 18:26-28 and John 4:24 say that God is a spirit?

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:

That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God's being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1John 1:5, "God is light," or Deut. 4:24, "Your God is a devouring fire." It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship.
- J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, edited and completed by B. A. Mastin, (New York, Harper & Row, 1968), 147–148.


14. Why did God encourage Abraham & Sarah to lie in Abra. 2:24? Isn't lying a sin according to the 10 commandments? Why did God tell Abraham and Sarah to lie when 2 Nephi condemns liars to hell?

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.


15. Why does the Book of Mormon state that Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) when history and the Bible state that he was born outside of Jerusalem, in Bethlehem?

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.)

 


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections; lds; magicundies; mormon; mormonism; religion; religionmormon; romney; undies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 1,001-1,018 next last
To: LeGrande

***So you believe in the Bible and Ripleys Believe it or Not? I guess that makes sense : ***

Ripleys had verification for all except ONE, the story of the Napoleonic soldier who died in a Russian prison in the 1900’s.

And I was not on the scene to take scientific readings when the sun was commanded to stand still so I can’t say why they had light for that time. But to those on the ground it appeard that they did stand still. I assume you were there as you keep bringing it up.

And as I pointed out, light refraction caused by atmospheric conditions can cause strange things.

Lets not forget that your “gods” the scientists believed in the Piltdown man for many years till it was proven as a hoax and in another 100 years many things you believe in today will now be considered “old hat”.


801 posted on 01/02/2008 3:24:38 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Only infidel blood can quench Muslim thirst-- Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)
Are you actually saying the BOM, and the D & C and the PoGP...line up with the bible?

Have you ever read the D & C?

802 posted on 01/02/2008 3:27:22 PM PST by Osage Orange (Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

David Keene of the American Conservative Union, US Sen. Jim Talent, US Sen. Judd Gregg ...


803 posted on 01/02/2008 3:29:17 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

~”Have you ever wondered why...there are very few, IF any biblical scholars in the general authority?”~

They’re all Biblical scholars. They could Bible you under the table, though they’ve the good taste not to, since it’s generally so unproductive.

Do not mistake a lay ministry (from which all Church leaders are drawn) for an ignorant one. Lay ministers actually have to -work- for a living. That means a profession.


804 posted on 01/02/2008 3:29:28 PM PST by tantiboh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
LOL!!

I love Gomer.......

No....R E A L L Y..!!!???

I've never ever noticed that.

805 posted on 01/02/2008 3:30:08 PM PST by Osage Orange (Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
If the sun and moon standing still for an entire day were considered from purely physics parameters, the result would be analogous to the following:

A man travels to South America and gets arrested on false drug peddling charges. He is put in prison then tried in a trumped up court and sentenced to death by firing squad. The firing squad is made up of the finest marksmen in the country's army, who are all absolute marksmen, 100 of them. The squad is assembled, the prisoner is brought out and tied to a wall so he remains motionless, the weapons are loaded with live ammunition, and the orders are given 'Ready. Aim. Fire!' All 100 of the 100 weapons fire the rounds, and the marksmen miss. What concept in Physics could account for this 'coincidence'?

806 posted on 01/02/2008 3:30:36 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698); Elsie

~”You are just bashing.”~

That’s what Elsie does. After a while, it becomes background noise, kind of like that fan with a bad bearing.


807 posted on 01/02/2008 3:32:32 PM PST by tantiboh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

~”Defending Mitt must suck when there is an Internet.”~

Yeah, ‘cause you can believe -everything- you find on the Internet.

Actually, defending Mitt ain’t half bad. It makes it easier that he actually has a shot at winning.


808 posted on 01/02/2008 3:33:59 PM PST by tantiboh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
I've never heard of your pagan Jacoby....ROFLOL!!

Someone posted Tertulian as the origin of the doctrines adopted by the council of Nice. I googled his name and read his biography.

I learned that he was indeed the source. His biography also said that his ideas were rejected by the Bishop of Rome, as heresy.

I am not making this up. He lived about 150AD.

809 posted on 01/02/2008 3:34:09 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

~”I have found that it is wise to let her have the last word.”~

Maybe that’s why I’m still single...?


810 posted on 01/02/2008 3:35:46 PM PST by tantiboh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 763 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican
Point taken.....although I disagree with some of your assumption that they are all "good conservatives."

Even conservatives can be fooled....I think you've been fooled...and you are here. On the PREMIER conservative web site, IMO.

Romney is no conservative, IMO....He's a slick "say anything, at anytime" politician...

811 posted on 01/02/2008 3:37:22 PM PST by Osage Orange (Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: tantiboh
Maybe that’s why I’m still single...?

Actually, I say that in jest. We have been married since 1962, and we have 24 grandkids.

It is a delight to go and visit them.

We just spent a week in Denver with our eldest Daughter and her family. It was most enjoyable.

812 posted on 01/02/2008 3:42:18 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

~”I also let my wife wear shoes and get out of the kitchen at times.”~

That’s fine; just make sure to keep her pregnant.


813 posted on 01/02/2008 3:43:16 PM PST by tantiboh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: tantiboh
just make sure to keep her pregnant.

I did while I could. Can't anymore, we are both in our sixties.

814 posted on 01/02/2008 3:45:28 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

Ah, very nice. I live in Denver. If you were here for Christmas, you’d have been here for that big snowstorm.


815 posted on 01/02/2008 3:47:57 PM PST by tantiboh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
The whole mormon faith is BASED and FOUNDED on what the first mormon said.

Yes, and Lutherans are beholden to Martin Luther, and Catholics are beholden to the Pope.

Should we hold all Lutherans responsible for every single utterance made by Martin Luther??

Should all Roman Catholics be judged on the views and comments of the first Pope??

Or any Pope there-after??

Many people of many faiths, rightly or wrongly, pick and choose the tenants of that faith in which they choose to follow or believe.

Mormons are no different, and I am reasonably certain all Mormons do not believe or promote all the sayings or teachings of the first Mormon.

816 posted on 01/02/2008 3:47:58 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

Well, never hurts to try.

Alright, I’ll get my coat.


817 posted on 01/02/2008 3:49:49 PM PST by tantiboh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
Romney is no conservative, IMO.

Who, pray tell, is your preferred candidate?

818 posted on 01/02/2008 3:50:11 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: tantiboh
If you were here for Christmas, you’d have been here for that big snowstorm.

Yes, we arrived on Sunday evening before the storm and left the next Saturday.

819 posted on 01/02/2008 3:53:46 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 815 | View Replies]

To: tantiboh
~”Defending Mitt must suck when there is an Internet.”~

Actually, it would be a lot harder to defend Harry Reid.

The Church contains both Republicans and Democrats.

Every election year, a letter from the First Presidency is read over the pulpit explaining that the Church does not endorse or finance any candidates. No member can do so on behalf of the church.

820 posted on 01/02/2008 4:04:03 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 1,001-1,018 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson