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.)
Ping
With enough gullibility, anything can be explained.
That explains why some think that Romney is a conservative.
“Consider the source” ping.
Yeah, and some thought that Jim Jones , David Koresh were truly men and prophets from GOD. Joe Smith was a false man of GOD and Prophet.
I don’t even know where to start.....so I won’t.
But I found this concerning LDS apologists.
” They is paid indirectly by the Mormon Church to publish articles and reviews on the Brigham Young University Website called “FARMS”. Many LDS Apologists are professors at the Mormon owned Brigham Young University. They spend countless hours writing apologetic material for the LDS Corporation and posting on the apologetic FAIR boards.
The job as a Mopologist (Mormon Apologist) is to contradict, counteract, suppress, withhold and dismiss any claims made by persons outside the LDS Church (read: Anti-Mormon). They do this by discrediting authors, creating answers to Mormon questions (such as horses in the Book of Mormon were really tapirs) and dismissing any Anti-Mormon claims in any way they can. Often, the apologist uses his “professor” status and his knowledge of the English language to write works that impress and convince Mormons that his answers are all that is required.
Experience shows that there is nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Mormon past or present, in its history, or in its culture that apologists will not excuse, rationalize, downplay, explain away, dismiss, or ignore, as a means to support pre-determined conclusions that the Mormon Church is the ONLY “true and living church” (common Mormon phraseology) on the earth. This includes, among other things, Joseph Smiths’ lying and philandering, murder of innocents, Gordon Hinkley’s repudiation of long-held “divine” teachings, racism, sexism, homophobia, anachronisms and blatant errors in divine texts, wholesale plagiarism in divine texts, uncharitable practices and statements of “divinely inspired” men, personality cults, etc., etc. In short, many, many things that decent and moral people (including Mormons in other contexts) find objectionable.”
Correction: They are
Now that we have DNA research, a Mormon DNA researcher did investigate the origin of ancient inhabitants of the Americas and find ...... that they are NOT of any Semitic tribe but rather Oriental (the Mormon research, has, of course, been silenced)!
So much for Joseph's "prophecy."
For those of use who have been invoved in the debate here at FR, this is an opportunity to look at the LDS-approved answers and compare them to the answers we have found through our own research of LDS and other sources. It further is interesting that the LDS church is mobilizing a cadre of apologists for "internet duty" and incidentally to provide the "milk before meat" message.
From FAIR's website:
FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Click here and go to the very bottom of the page.
If you want official LDS doctrine, you go to the source: LDS.org
Apologists are individual members who interpret doctrine according to their own intellectual backgrounds and upbringing. Prophets and apostles, as was the case in the Old and New Testaments, receive revelation from God. These revelations are doctrine, not the interpretations of individual members. LDS.org is official. FAIR is not by their own admission.
Individual members cannot receive revelation for the church, so, I suggest you read from the source of this doctrine and then make your comparisons. Asking God for his direction in this search would also be helpful. "If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God..." "Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you..." etc., etc...
Tag here, digesting
FAIR, CAIR. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
However, it's remarkably like the "Odin father/god" dichotomy unraveled several years back by Thor Hyerdahl.
Turns out "Odin" was a real man about 2000 years ago, possibly living in Azerbaijan, who took his tribe and fled to the far North to escape Roman conscription. No doubt at all about the "father/god" situation for Odin.
The Apostolic Charismatic Church of the First Born had members well versed in the old time religion of the far North (in the Sapmai) and they would have brought that belief with them in the early 1700s when they came to cut down trees in what is now Vermont and New Hampshire. Young could have been doing nothing more than discussing his neighbors' religious beliefs ~
Now, when do I expect the LDS to look into that possibility? Never, actually, there being a general inclination at the top to avoid the COTFB guys like the plague!
Both groups have prior entanglements with LDS.
Is there something wrong with “homophobia”? This is not DU~~~!!!!
Elaborate on your comment, please.
This all happened about 14,000 years ago though.
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.