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.)
Is that what that article of "faith" means?
I've had others say that the 13 are NOT considered to be a 'creed'!
13
BEAUTIFUL!
...and scary.
“This election is about the future. Don’t look to the past for answers.”
Much of the disagreement between us was thought up by the Pagan Lawyer Tertulian. The doctrines he thought up were not taught by the Bishop of Rome, who said Tertulian's doctrines were heresy.
HMmmm...
Kinda the old RLDS bunch?
Much of the disagreement between us was thought up by the Emma Hale Smith. The doctrines (s)he thought up were not taught by her dearly departed husband, who said ALL Christianity's doctrines were heresy.
I would imagine that it is a bit like this:
Isaiah 7:14-15
14. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
15. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.
HE took on human flesh and a time came when "he knows enough" occured.
Now I ask, "Why?" If He is GOD from the getgo; why is it that an amount of time passes before this occurs?
It seems to me that ALL of humanity would be in the same boat: born with SOMETHING (which we haven't defined here) but, at some point in time, we ALL now become ACCOUNTABLE for our choices, for we now "know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right."
So, by reading the Book further, we find:
Romans 4:13-15
13. It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.
14. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless,
15. because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
So it appears that in at least THIS instance, Ignorance of the LAW is an excuse!
In summation, babies & children in general are 'innocent' UNTIL they "know enough".
(IMHO)
True; we can't know what was said in these meetings, but we CAN know what DIDN'T happen.
Porn DIDN'T stop when he was on the board and he did not QUIT the board because porn WAS being shown in the hotels.
Ypu!!
The above is BACKGROUND noise.
Noise that STILL shouts out how screwed up your 'founders' were.
The bad bearing, if not addressed, WILL cause the wheel to fall off some day.
UMmmm...
Not likely....
UMmmm...
...even ignorant 14 yo farm boys can be fooled.
Sarai laughed!
Never say never.
And yet, some who DO, are told that they are NOT Mormon by the group that is based in SLC.
Go figger; the ones who so desperately want to be labeled as 'Christians, too!' do NOT extend that graciousness to their prodigal's who have NOT agreed that the Declaration has any value.
In what percentages?
Well; we'll still have CHOICE!
“Suffers from delusions of adequacy.”
The only 'kings and queens' in this great nation are the voters who have answered the numerous poll questions from a multitude of pollsters the past few months.
As much as I like Duncan Hunter, he obviously does not have the support of most Republican voters .... because they obviously do not see him as having the type of personality that wins Presidential elections.
It is depressing, but true. No need to get all spiteful and mad at the other candidates.
FR has unfortunately morphed away from a 'conservative' website into a 'cult-of-personality' website, with anyone who doesn't support the preferred personality of Duncan Hunter of Fred Thompson is suddenly on the outs.
How else to explain the total pass all the Romney-haters give to John McCain, who has done more to destroy the conservative movement the past seven years than Romney could ever even IMAGINE in his wildest nightmare.
Consider: McCain voted against all Bush tax cuts, McCain supports amnesty for illegals.
McCain wants to eliminate Guantanamo. McCain wants to outlaw CIA procedures (waterboarding) to interrogate terrorists.
McCain designed the 'gang-of-14' agreement which totally derailed momentum for a host of fabulous conservative judges.
The list goes on and on whereby McCain has voted against almost every conservative incentive the past 7 years -- yet he gets NONE of the wrath the Romney haters dish at Mitt for several pandering comments years ago.
Like I said, FR has become a cult of personality devoid of the principals I previously found so refreshing.
And if he DOESN'T?
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.