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 know of one article in National Geographic in particular that is written by a non-mormon and never mentions mormonism but describes exactly many of the wars between Nephites and Lamanites.
So your statement is false. The writer didn't make the connection but to an LDS member reading the article it is pretty obvious.
Have you ever read about someone who may deserve to go to Hell?
I haven’t met many people who I think deserve to go to Heaven
I haven't met anyone who deserves to go to heaven. Zilch. Nada.
“The people who genuinely seek the truth will be glad they found the LDS Church.”
Wow, a new definition of irony.
The mere fact that you remain in the LDS ‘church’ clearly tells me you have not sought truth. I was where you are, witnessed some strange things, decided to investigate and research, and found my way. I am sure, if you are intelligent, you will find yours as well.
98% of those in the ‘church’ are so incredibly clueless about the factual history it’s disgusting. But, they choose to remain that way, so it’s their own fault.
Ignorance is bliss, as it is said.
Send me a link, I’d like to see that.
There are also many homosexuals that never harrass men or boys, or other women or girls. They are still sinners, and so are those who justify hatred of them because of the sinfulness of homosexuals.
Hate the sin. Not the sinner.
We are all sinners. We all hurt others, then justify it in our minds. The earth is a fallen place. Each of us are dispicable in our own sense. Some of us think we are “better” or more deserving of God’s favor. The truth is, we all deserve God’s wrath. The liar and the homosexual, the adulterer, the thief, the con-man, the hater, the one who disrespects his/her own parents. Again I ask you, are YOU the one to cast the first stone.
Palmyra (from the dateline) is in western NY. That is where Joseph Smith lived when he supposedly experienced the described revelations. But I suppose that Palmyra was somewhat like the old west in 1830.
“Have you ever read about someone who may deserve to go to Hell?”
Yes. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.
I am such a worm.
“I know of one article in National Geographic in particular that is written by a non-mormon and never mentions mormonism but describes exactly many of the wars between Nephites and Lamanites.”
By your own words you say that the writer never mentions mormons. So, how can this be an archaelogical account and proof positive when the article itself mentions nothing about mormons or the BoM? Then you go on to say my statement is false.
Wow, s’cuse me for a second whilst I go dig out my hip-waders from the storage room. The dookie is getting deep in here.
Me too Saundra. Me too.
Well then, I guess you could call me a Romneyphobe.
But, but, but he says man is co-equal.
From Joseph Smith's King Follet Sermon
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. If the vail was rent to-day, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,--I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form--like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked, and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.
In order to understand the subject of the dead, for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see. ………………
The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.
"co-equal" Twice the word co-equal is used by Joseph Smith. Once in this paragraph, and again in the next paragraph ("There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven"). 10th LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, recognizing that such a teaching could not be true, blames this on an imperfect record. He excuses this error by saying, "This illustrates the imperfection of the report made on the sermon. For surely the mind of man is not co-equal with God except in the matter of its eternity." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 353, footnote).
(Joseph Fielding) Smith's conclusion is refuted by the fact that three of the four scribes record Smith as saying co-equal. Stan Larson, in his artlcle entitled "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text," confirms that William Clayton, Wilford Woodruff, and Willard Richards all record Smith as saying co-equal. Thomas Bullock's notes have him saying the mind of man is as "immortal as God himself" and that "their Spirits coexisted with God." (BYU Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, p.195,196).
~”What you ARE doing is calling attention to the fact that you have a heavy investment in getting this out of the News forum and I’m sure there are some readers wondering just WHY that is.”~
I thought I’d made that plain? I have no personal investment. I’m just here to learn. Frankly, the more Romney gets pilloried for his religion by the anti-Mormon zealots, the more sympathy he will receive from the majority of voters.
I am concerned, though, that FR is becoming a place where advocacy is replacing serious discussion. Mormonism is not the only such issue. Fred Thompson’s candidacy is another. We’re so hell-bent on his winning that we fail to analyze why he’s losing. Likewise, some FReepers are so hell-bent on discrediting Mormonism that discussion of a decent candidate’s actual fitness for office is becoming obfuscated. Your decision to place this thread in News/Activism contributes to this problem, whether you meant to or not. This problem makes FR a less valuable place to learn and gain insight in political matters.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that I don’t believe God can take care of His own matters. Nothing ever posted anywhere on FR will thwart God’s designs, regardless of who is right about what those designs are. Discussion of my faith does not threaten my faith. Therefore, I have no such investment.
Ah, well, we’ll know where this is all heading in a few days. If Romney loses IA, he’s finished. If he wins IA, he’ll be a shoe-in for the candidacy. My gut tells me that he’ll win. It should be very interesting to watch the reaction to that around here.
If I’m right about Mormonism being a political weapon, though, the attacks on Mormonism will settle down in a few weeks regardless of the outcome in IA. If Romney’s out of the picture, there will no longer be any reason to discredit him based on his Mormonism. If Romney is the nominee, the anti-Mormons will be castigated into silence for not uniting behind the party’s candidate.
To Revolting Cat:
I also enjoyed your summary of the Mormon Apologetics arguments cited in the article. Absolutely nothing of merit is presented. What we have is very thin and unpersuasive. How could an MBA and famous businessman like Romney believe in any of this. For his Mormonism alone, Romney is a doomed candidate. Republicans are flirting with folly if they nominate this man. Something must be happening because Hugh Hewitt seemed to tone down his over the top boosterism a little this week. I think Hugh is leaving a little room to change horses when Romney goes down.
~”Ignorance is bliss, as it is said.”~
Perhaps, but I am far from ignorant, and everything I learn about my faith makes me stronger in it.
The trick is to learn how to discern truth. That takes study, patience, and prayer.
IMO, you should take up your problems with FR with Jim Robinson. This is a presidential campaign season, or haven't you noticed?
You are saying that "advocacy" is a problem, but I don't see you making the same criticisms of your Romney supporter friends....
“The trick is to learn how to discern truth. That takes study, patience, and prayer.”
And, a couple magic stones and a hat don’t hurt either!
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.