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 this dude some relative of yours...?
You sure seem fixated on the fellow.......
Wait....this is some special assignment you've been given, right?
: )
The only changes made in the Book of Mormon are: It was broken down into verses for easier reference, and punctuation and spelling changes.
At the time it was written there was not universal agreement on how words should be spelled, nor how some punctuation was to be used.
In about the 1980s the church arranged for a University in England to put the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price through a computer process to make cross references. It was not done by BYU because they didn't have software capable of doing it.
You can now buy volumes that have the cross references printed on the bottom of the page where it applies.
There is also a Topical Guide where the cross references are sorted by subject matter.
They do not contradicts each other. You can buy the books and look for yourself.
In one of the discussions on this forum, I asked who the early writers they were referring to when they talked about the early Christians.
One of the participants told me that the main writer was Tertulian. I decided to look up what I could find about him, and that is where I got my information.
I am sure whoever wrote his biography got it right. I am sure the information is readily available. I didn’t have to search very much to find it.
You really don't know your own church history.........
And again what was it that this Tertulian guy did..that relates to mormonism?
There are still in existence printed volumes from the first edition.
There are also fake documents such as those done by the guy who blew himself up with a package bomb in Salt Lake City.
(He admitted to making fake documents and is still in jail for blowing people up with other bombs.) They are still finding and identifying fake documents made by him. I am sure he is not the only one making fakes.
He is the author of most of the Nicean Creed. The doctrine of the Trinity is his.
It is the litmus test used to identify who is a Christian.
"At the time it was written there was not universal agreement on how words should be spelled, nor how some punctuation was to be used."
And I will say it again......You don't understand your own religious history...if you are going to stick to this story.
Hmmm...
And here I thought God's Word was the final authority.
That's OK...I don't mind pinging Jim for you, no problem.
Tertulian was not a Prophet, the Bishop of Rome who lived at the same time, rejected his doctrine as heresy.
I believe the Bishop of Rome at that time was a better authority on Bible doctrine than Tertulian.
Nevertheless, Tertulian's doctrine was adopted some 150 years later. There were also no Prophets who were part of that process.
Where did you think the doctrine came from?
I see where this is going. One letter at a time, it was repeated and then another letter was revealed. I guess God didn’t agree with how words should be spelled or on some puctuation.
,-)
I see where this is going. One letter at a time, it was repeated and then another letter was revealed. I guess God didn’t agree with how words should be spelled or on some puctuation.
,-)
Anything I say in explanation will just make you angry.
Nice dodge.
So wasn’t Smith given the Book of Mormon, one letter at a time?
David Witmer, one of the scribes of the Book of Mormon, and a witness to the Gold Plates had this to say:
“I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”4
Martin Harris, also one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, provided this information to his friend Edward Stevenson, who would later become part of the LDS First Council of Seventy.
Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say “Written,” and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.” 7
Didn’t your God know common spelling?
Can you give me a more complete reference for where this is found?
Didn’t your God know common spelling?
At that time there was no "common spelling". That came later.
Which spelling of a variety should he have used?
I am sure the Lord would have accepted whatever spelling was decided upon. Those who wrote dictionaries finally agreed on a common spelling for most words. There are still variations between American English and British English.
It is found on page 12 of David Whitmer’s book, “An Address to All Believers in Christ.”
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp31670
If he doesn’t, his campaign will likely collapse. If so, I’ll be looking for the next best option. We’ll know soon!
~”If it’s holy, why should man change it?”~
If it’s holy, why has the Bible been changed thousands of times? I’m OK with it.
This “The BoM has been changed hundreds of times” thing is a talking point from the anti-Mormons. You really should come to understand the shaky foundation of that accusation.
God, couldn't spell then I guess....
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.