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.)
The question that I am asking and that you keep avoiding is whether you believe that it happened the way the Bible said it did? Then you can try and explain how the Moon stayed in one place for an extra day : )
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”.
Scientific theories are only 'good' until they are over turned with evidence. I fully expect that all of our scientific theories will need modification as we increase our understanding. That is the difference between science and religion, you are stuck defending what some dead guy said 4000 years ago who you know is wrong. Science just admits it was wrong and moves on, wiser and better.
INDIANA!!
Beats following some dude who used a ROCK to try and find BURIED treasure!
Well; it's sure not your fault; for you have quite a personality!
IMO, that's very naive. IF, you don't think there are string pullers and door closers...I've got some lake side land I'd like to sell you. BTW, have you noticed how many questions Hunter gets in the "debates"?
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.
Sadly...personality and looks trump common sense and honesty.
It is depressing, but true. No need to get all spiteful and mad at the other candidates.
Take some Prozac, bubby...: )
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.
Geesh you can say that again....Look in the mirror.
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.
You're new here, right? Have you missed the McCain threads? BTW, you better check Mr. Romney's credentials. He's NO CONSERVATIVE...and I agree...neither is McCain.
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.
Oh yeah....Romney's the pandering victim. ROFLOL!!
How many McCain threads do you want...where FReepers take him to task...long before I ever heard of Mitt Romney.
Like I said....."You're new here, right?"
Like I said, FR has become a cult of personality devoid of the principals I previously found so refreshing.
I don't think JimRob has you strapped to your computer chair.
Nothing stopping you from leaving.......
Via Con Dios.........
This is rich!
First, wanting to know if he thinks GOD did it, and then...
wanting to know HOW GOD did it!
(Don't put all your begs in one askit.)
You are speaking (typing, at least) in TONGUES!
You KNOW the the Book says not to do that unless there is someone who interprets; so here goes:
“Go with GOD!”
(Gotcher back!)
Pity the poor Spanish speaking Mormons:
They have to rely on a translation of a translation...
The real question is whether the Sun and the Moon stood still. Did they?
Sure. That what it says. I’m pretty sure God can do that type of thing. He made them.
HA HA!
Now you'll get a SLEW of reasons WHY that could not POSSIBLY have happened; physics wise.
I can always count on you to be pleasant and joyful. ROFLOL!!
The funny thing is....you are a mormon and have absolutely no idea that you've been lied to..and sold a bill of goods.
You can get back to me....when you've done some serious investigation.
Gracia’s mi amigo.......
That’s the same slew of people who told me you can’t make a 1 gig DDR memory module or a 1 TB hard drive. It’s just physically not possible.
Wasn't Christ the exception to being born with the sin of Adam? I thought that was the whole point of the Virgin Birth.
Your belief is that normal little children are born sinners and go to hell unless they are born again. Don't try to weasel out and copy the Mormons : )
wanting to know HOW GOD did it!
I am audacious aren't I? Asking people who believe weird impossible things to prove it. What is the world coming too?
How do you know he made them?
That’s what it says in the Bible.
You are a fast replier : ) Why do you believe the Bible?
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.