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.)
~”So wasn’t Smith given the Book of Mormon, one letter at a time?”~
No, it was given one word or phrase at a time, corresponding to the original symbols. Spelling had to be decided on by the transcriber; punctuation wasn’t given at all.
Tant...are you actually saying that the BOM hasn't been changed?
Nobody is saying it hasn't been changed in any way.
It hasn't been changed in any material way.
The message hasn't changed.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s inconsequential.
You need to read post #915. and refute it if you can. Harris and Martin were there during the translation. Were you or any of your FAIR or FARMS apologists?
You seem to rely on the testimonies of Martin and Harris regarding the Golden Plates. But you don’t rely on their testimony regarding the transmission of words and sentences. Quite amazing, in an odd sort of way.
That should read Harris and Whitmer, not Harris and Martin.
...Martin Harris and David Whitmer...
~”You need to read post #915. and refute it if you can.”~
Sure. First, I suggest you re-read it a little more carefully. You might focus on the following portion:
“One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English.”
In Egyptian - of which a revised form was used to write on the plates - a given character or symbol represents a concept, much like many Eastern languages today. This made the language called by Moroni “Reformed Egyptian” a most compact and efficient language to use in the limited space available on the plates. Indeed, he even lamented that he couldn’t use their form of Hebrew, the language in which he was most fluent, due to the lack of space. (See Mormon 9:32)
And, so, as Joseph was translating, he would be shown a single character in Reformed Egyptian and be given its English significance via either the seer stone or the Urim and Thummim. He would dictate that to the scribe, who would write it down and verify it.
Frankly, I thought the explanation was obvious, so I didn’t see the need to mention it above.
***If it’s holy, why has the Bible been changed thousands of times? I’m OK with it.***
Simply retranslated into the vernacular of the times. Not changed, retranslated.
As the translators of the KJV said..
• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
• 2 As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
I understand enough to believe the doctrine taught in the church.
I realize that you are putting on an image of being the know it all.
Yet you don't seem to know where the doctrine of the trinity came from. It sure didn't come from the Bible. The word doesn't appear there.
A change of doctrine like that is called apostasy.
No, I really mean changed.
Here’s an interesting, though by no means exhaustive, chart:
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
Do you know of any English words which are found in the New Testament letters and Gospels? I can’t think of any! But the Greek texts teach God in three persons as ONE. I think it is more established than the peepstone prophet claims of a language called ‘reformed Egyptian’ and it’s sure more credible than an Egyptian book of the dead excerpt translated into the fictional book of Abraham. And by the way, what was Smith ‘translating’ when he rewrote the Bible, the King James Bible, adding thousands of words to the text? Where did the astonishing script of Joseph in Egypt come from which Smith claimed foretold of ‘his coming in these latter days’ now in the Joseph Smith ‘Translation’ of the King James Bible at the end of the Book of Genesis?
No, I really mean changed.
Here’s an interesting, though by no means exhaustive, chart:
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
Merely using different texts, namely Alexandrian/Sinai (RSV type)instead of Byzantine Majority texts (KJV type).
Personally I prefer the Majority texts.
No changes in doctrines in either.
He would dictate that to the scribe, who would write it down and verify it.
And God let all those mistakes go by even after verification. Amazing!
Matthew 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mark 10:18
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Luke 18:19
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
There you have it in 3 out of 4 Christian gospels!
I have no information on whether the the latter day saint's jesus thinks that any good can come from other false gods or whether the bishops of false gods make good Presidents.
I’m happy to acknowledge your acceptance of my refutation.
I think God is more concerned with preaching the Gospel than with perfect punctuation.
I don’t know about bishops of false gods, but it appears likely that we won’t be finding out about Romney this time.
We can thank God for that.
Google the name ELSIE and prove what you claimed is true.
Otherwise you'll be considered a liar.
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.