"What's all this I hear about Mormons and macaroni?
Oh...nevermind."
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.)
“everything I learn about my faith makes me stronger in it.
“
The problem here is that you have not bothered to learn about your faith in places other than the standard safe places ordered by your leaders. I guess you just are happy being told what to do.
Fine, but you were still mistaken. The “Adam-God theory” is not advanced in the King Follet sermon. Nor is it advanced anywhere besides in the single, isolated quote by Young. It is not LDS doctrine.
As for the red herring you’ve tossed out, LDS theology holds that we are like God, albeit in embryonic form. In the sense that we have within us the potential to become as He is, we are co-equal, just as your son is co-equal to you and has the potential to develop and grow to become as you are.
Don’t like that theology? That’s fine.
“The problem here is that you have not bothered to learn about your faith in places other than the standard safe places ordered by your leaders.”
Christopher Hitchens hates all of us and believes all of us are equally deceived. You are in good company.
Qué?
National numbers don’t matter a whit at this moment, and you know it. IA is the epicenter. There, Huckabee has leveraged religion to try and beat Romney, from the malicious Satan-and-Jesus-being-brothers question (and don’t try to tell me that was an accident, coming from a Baptist minister) to the harmless cross-over-his-shoulder Christmas commercial. It irks me, but there you have it. We’ll see if the social conservatives in Iowa fall for it.
"What's all this I hear about Mormons and macaroni?
Oh...nevermind."
~”You are saying that “advocacy” is a problem, but I don’t see you making the same criticisms of your Romney supporter friends....”~
That’s because my Romney supporter friends aren’t drowning everything out with fanboyism.
~”The problem here is that you have not bothered to learn about your faith in places other than the standard safe places ordered by your leaders.”~
Try me.
Why have you turned this around? You're the one who's seemingly wanting to sideline this national conversation whenever possible to the "religion" section. (Some kind of segregated separate but equal convo, eh?) I think an open discussion is time well spent, whereas you label it as some "hobby" equivalent of a "train set."
Defense of Mormonism is only a political matter when the anti-Mormons use Mormonism to attack Romney.
OK, this statement had to make me seriously chuckle. You frame this as a "defensive" mindset only. (Maybe that's your mindset, but I don't think you represent the LDS PR professionals & others). I could almost guarantee you that the LDS PR budget would skyrocket with a Mormon in the White House. Romney is the LDS HQ ticket to mainstream acceptance. They see an "offensive" that's never been there before, because they know they can play the victim card & have their grassroots call out "bigot" @ every turn where Mormonism is opposed.
And this "offensive" is already underway direct from both SLC & wherever LDS are accessing online forums.
If they judged his candidacy on the merits, we’d all be singing Kum-Bay-Yah.
If you go to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945204/posts?q=1&;page=94#94 & click on posts 76, 77, 80 & 81, you'll see there's no shared merits accumulated in Romney's track record. Yes, LDS & Christians share many values. Romney's track record leaves him too untrustworthy to count upon.
“from the malicious Satan-and-Jesus-being-brothers question (and don’t try to tell me that was an accident, coming from a Baptist minister) to the harmless cross-over-his-shoulder Christmas commercial”
Good thing he didn’t say anything about rocks in a hat or Myth would really be in trouble!
I don’t have those. All I have is faith, study, and prayer. It works for me.
LOL, WHAT A HOOT!....Every mitt thread is decorated with smitten female mittbots raving about his wonderful HAIR, his GOOD LOOKS, his SMILE....I guess you could call it "fanGIRLism" in that case.
Start here:
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Mormons/00000010.htm
Read Book I and get back to me. It’s a semi-contemporary account. I doubt you will take the time to bother as it’s not from JeffLindsay, or FAIR, or BYU, or LDS.org.
[So Hell is reserved for a rather exclusive group of sinners, not the garden variety who just go through life flipping God off?]
Yes. Some people are more demon than human and would probably be more comfortable in Hell. The “garden variety” are errant children like the Prodigal Son.
~”Romney is the LDS HQ ticket to mainstream acceptance.”~
Once again, we come to it. Without discussing the merits of the assertion, that’s what really bothers you. Mormons bother you so much that you’ll do anything to see to it that we aren’t offered the privilege of mainstream acceptance.
Where’s your faith in God? If we are wrong, we will fail along with every other false doctrine. Why is the mainstreaming of Mormonism such a problem, if it’s in opposition to God? Doesn’t He have the power to defeat the false? That’s why I leave your religion alone.
~”...you’ll see there’s no shared merits accumulated in Romney’s track record.”~
Then why do you expend so much energy attacking his religion, if attacking his record is so much more effective?
Hold the phone! Mitt has great hair and he’s good looking but that’s sure as heck not why I support him!! That was an insulting thing to say.
Mitt Romney has a great family, a great record, he is Reaganesque, and he is a man of character and conviction. He saved the Olympics from scandal and doom. He has a stellar record in the private sector as a savvy businessman. His record as gov is sound and pro-life.
What’s not to love, I wonder.
There might be some fanboyism in Mitt’s good looks, too.
(don’t look now, but I think I might have aroused the ire of the homophobes)
You keep harping about rocks and hats. Are you trying to get a rise out of me? It isn’t working.
Certainly Hitler and company are extreme examples.
What about the garden variety murderer? Rapist?
What about the Enron executive who swindled the nice little lady down the street out of her nest egg?
LOL, any day I can return one of YOUR insults to ME, is a good day.
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.