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.)
I see you are still your most kind and loving self.
Really....? They are ALL biblical scholars, eh? And they are all "lay" person's!! Sure, I get it...Bill Clinton carried a bible when it suited him. Is that what these guy's do too?
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.
I've had a "lay" Bishop...tell me FLAT out, he actually knew little about the bible. Didn't know scripture...and couldn't debate/talk about the bible if his very LIFE...( which it does...) depended on it.
But I appreciate your lecture.
BTW, it's plainly obvious to me...that you have not sought God with a truly open heart, ...otherwise you would have long ago seen the the WAY.
I do pray that you see the TRUTH...and the LIFE.
Yeah, I know....you all pick and choose what appears to be relevant to ya.
That's great.....!!
I do believe you used the term “general authority.” Now, you try to refute me by moving the goalpost to “bishop.” Sorry, doesn’t wash.
If you’re gonna play ball, bring a bat.
You said Joshua made the sun stand still. That Scripture says that GOD made the sun stand still. Which is it?
But he's not been "crowned" by the Kings and Queens in our fair country.
The same Kings and Queens that foisted Bob Dole on us....have excluded Hunter.
Ideas and values no longer matter....it's sound bites, and money.
Morph talking, slicksters with the ability to suck the $$$ away from your pocket book, are what rule these days.
Or those that have the $$$ to sway the Sheeple with flowery speech, and the polished appearance.
Yes, Duncan Hunter is the most conservative in this horse race...but he will not place.
Personally I think....we continue down the "slippery slope"...no matter who gets elected POTUS. There is no POLITICAL saviour....
The only Saviour is Jesus Christ.
That's all you got?
I've never had the pleasure to speak to a "general authority"...but you and I know that most cannot quote you anything but your mormon taught scriptures.
Most of them are BUSINESS men....recruited to expand LDS, Inc.
They certainly aren't out in the towns and country saving souls...now are they?
Get back to me when you know what you’re talking about. It won’t be today.
tant,
I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the
doubt, if he had forthrightly dealt with the issue
when it was raised. Instead, all I heard were irrational
defenses.
As we know, I won’t be voting for Mitt anyway, but the
more I’ve learned, the more I’ve come to see Mitt and
Huck as not forthright about their convictions and
character. Even if I were in the market and considering
Mitt, I was turned off by his previous actions.
I’ve come to believe he is a good businessman and
good manager. I do not believe he is a visionary
leader. I see him as an opportunist, posing as a
conservative (and frankly, most others are too).
He has a conservative platform, shaped by the woman
he hired to shape his image among conservatives.
When people hear Hillary say something that is counter
to everything she has done, they still believe her
words over her actions. Mitt supporters are not
different on FR. Every time he comes up with another
paper or position, I simply look to his history and
wonder why anyone would believe him.
Never-the-less, I think Mitt will squeak through tonight
in Iowa based on organizational strength and the incredible
number of dollars he has spent and the sheer number of attack
adds he has run against Huckabee.
I would prefer Mitt lose, but I try to be objective. If he wins
by a lot, the Huck threat is over and it moves to NH.
BTW, if Mitt had donated 10% to charity as some kind of
way of neutralizing his winking at porn, he would be acknowledging
he knew about it. Yet even now, he could go back and do it
and doesn’t.
He’s one sharp manipulator who cares about family, money,
power... and his faith (but I mentioned power already).
best to you,
ampu
http://packham.n4m.org/
Fair enough. We’ll see what happens tomorrow. Romney -has- to win IA. If he does that, there’s very little else standing in his way. Things are looking good for Romney, as you say. I think it’s better than even money that you’ll have to face resolving your inner crisis about him next November.
Perversely, I’m actually rooting for Fred tomorrow, too. If Fred takes third, it seriously damages McCain’s chances in NH against Romney, and keeps Fred from dropping out and throwing his support to McCain. I don’t think McCain can beat Romney in SC anyway, particularly after MI, but it’s always good to be sure.
As a WY native, I think the question in EVERYBODY’s mind should be: Where will WY go?
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/29337
I’m only being half sarcastic. There will be some buzz from the WY results, and it could affect a close race in NH.
tant,
The candidate should be decided before PA,
where I reside, so who I am for in the
primary is in a way, insignificant.
As to November, if it’s Romney, I’ll be
fishing. :-) that is decided already. If he
is elected, I’ll do my best to be supportive,
since he will be my Prez too. If he gets it
though, I’m not sure he will win.
The country wants change. I’ve asked myself
who best represents change on each side. I’m
not really sure. Obama is certainly the most
“inspiring” and warm, at this point. If he is
perceived that way, then I imagine that is a
big plus for him.
I always use the “float trip down the AR
river with a cooler of beer” test. If you wouldn’t
have a great time spending a day with a candidate
and visualize yourself doing it, he or she won’t
win. Clinton passed. Dole didn’t. Mitt - I don’t
think so. Obama, maybe. I won’t be voting for
Mitt or Obama, so I am curious to see how the
country votes.
I think anyone who wins early contests will
be reexamined as things move further. I would
have preferred Fred or someone similar, but
I don’t see it happening. It will be a rhino
of one horn or the other. I could hold my
nose and vote for some of them.
So, your test for determining if a candidate is a change agent (which is what you say the country wants to elect) is whether you’d have a good time with him on a float trip?
Good grief, AMPU, that can’t be what you mean!
I haven’t put much thought into it, but something tweaks me about your statement that America is demanding change. Let me chew on it.
Ya better believe that the "true-believing Mormons" adhere to (a) that which is in their Scriptures; and (b) that vision which is the revelation of revelations for them--their first vision.
You keep making statements as if you were fully ignorant. But Elsie already posted you that on post #720, so you are without excuse.
tant,
two things:
1. Float Trip Test is my test to PREDICT who wins. Not to
choose a candidate for myself. It says, “Is he likeable?”
2. This election is about change. The majority of the
country says we are moving in the wrong direction. They’ve
had it with Bush. They are worried about the economy.
Who best represents change with competence? I believe they
want change of direction and hope for a better future. They
want to remain secure while it happens.
BTW, it is so cold out here tonight, it feels like Wyoming!
Islam claims to have a prophet. You may have heard of him. By your logic, he couldn’t have been false, since Islam is very much with us, and I might add far greater in number than LDS. Islam has also been around far longer than LDS.
I mean the ability to recognize and distinguish good/true from evil/false. The Bible teaches us how to do this in Galatians chapter 5.
That's not really telling how to discern what's true. Good perhaps, but not true.
But archeology, like any science, is changing its mind all the time. Why should I believe in fickle archeology in the face of the testimony of the Holy Ghost?
No archeology is not "changing its mind all the time". There are new discoveries made but that's not the same as changing its mind. I sense you want to get away from archeology or any discussion of external evidence. DNA evidence is another big problem.
and your point is that the LDS fly into buildings and behead peopl....!
surface thinker!
Everything that is good is of God. But you’re missing my point, and I can’t explain it any more clearly than I have.
*
Yes, and all those new discoveries routinely turn conventional wisdom on its head in the scientific community. Science, while valuable, is fickle. Archeology is no exception. Neither, by the way, is genetics.
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.