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.)
Decorated, yes. Smothered, no.
Now, granted, Thompson supporters have become eerily quiet in the last few days. Losing does that to a person. But for months, every single Romney thread got immediately hijacked with claims that Thompson was the only true conservative, and with various repetitious attacks on Romney, and Thompson threads were largely self-congratulatory echo chambers. Nothing new, nothing thoughtful. It was cool to be pro-Thompson on FR, so why should they be intellectual? In the meantime, Romney supporters on FR have had to develop rational arguments to support their candidate. As a result, we can now debate Thompson supporters under the table. All they can say is, “That guy’s a RINO flip-flopper!”
Go ahead, ask me why I support Romney. I dare ya. That’s a good topic for a News/Activism thread.
Again, you're projecting your problem with FR onto me, Tant...I told you to take it up with Jim Robinson.
Bookmarked for perusal.
lol
Spunky, Tantiboh hit the brakes on this exactly where their leaders have told them of late to smooth it over whereever possible with historic Christian theology. (See, we're only teaching Christian maturity and Christian godliness and Christlikeness...why what could be wrong with that?)
So let me pick it up where Tanty left off...and then wind around to the "pre" portion also not covered...
Let's see the left-off point...oh, yeah...just as your son is co-equal to you and has the potential to develop and grow to become as you are...
So you see, Spunky, just as your son can also be married as you are for all your life, you also can be spiritually married for all eternal life...& you & your goddess can have millions of spirit babies to populate your own planet. (I guess that would make you "Uncle god" to your nephews & nieces of spirits & enfleshed spirits on other planets run by other gods...while your spirit-kids are their cousins).
And just as your Heavenly Father is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, you too can become all of these as your own god of your own world.
Now for the "pre-pre-existent world": Well, just as Tantiboh said that we have within us the potential to become as He is, well, that also applied to your God. Once upon a time, he was mere potential divinity, a god-wannabe. Then he worked his way up to godhood, bootstraps & all. (Isn't it nice to know that you worship, pray to, sing to, etc. someone who's ONLY resume' for godhood was what he did as a man?)
As Tantiboh says, Don’t like that theology? That’s fine.
Did he really? What was the scandal and how was it revealed? What would have happened to the Olympics if Mitt hadn't stepped in to become savior? Was anyone ever convicted of any crime in regards to this so-called "scandal?"
Romney was set-up by the powers that be in Utah, to take the national stage in his lead-up to his run for POTUS. It is as simple as that. Anyone who takes the time to research the so-called scandal will find that the original Olympics organizing committee was doing a very adequate job in the planning, construction, funding and orchestrating of the Olympics. A single "anonymous" letter charging the officials with bribery was placed upon the desk of a Salt Lake City reporter. The rest is history.
A duck by any other name is still a duck, and the Church of LDS, by any apologetic is still the Church of LDS, and it is still a non-Christian religious cult.
If Romney is the nominee, the anti-Mormons will be castigated into silence for not uniting behind the party’s candidate.
154 posted on 12/29/2007 3:18:10 PM EST by tantiboh
Reveals what the Romney camp is counting on if he manages to buy the nomination. But it won't work, as their vigorous campaign to shut people up by calling them bigots, haters, etc. has shown at FR.
The poster almost comes across as a neutral party, just defending his religion. But the protestations that were solely in defense of Mormonism a few months ago have turned slowly to the promoting of Romney as viable regardless of religious baggage ... and we see what the coming plans are in the Romney campaign to try and win against the DNC choice. The problem the Mormon cabal has is that they cannot shut up all voices and they now know this because their squelch campaign at places like FR has failed to silence opposition to the cultish beliefs in Mormonism and thus left Romney exposed to rejection by Conservative Christians. The poster showed a lot when he slipped and asserted the above.
Un-American? America was founded on the concepts of liberty and freedom, including freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of speech. There is nothing un-American about criticising candidates or any facet of their lives including their personal philosophies or their religious beliefs. It's a guaranteed freedom. Perhaps the RINO Romney and his supporters would prefer living in a closed society where criticism and free speech are not allowed? If a candidate can't take the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen!
But, if you take a double murderer like Karla Faye Tucker of Texas who said she repented and was saved and tried to influence other convicts, I’d say God only knows.
Tucker’s last words were:
“Yes sir, I would like to say to all of you – the Thornton family and Jerry Dean’s family that I am so sorry. I hope God will give you peace with this. Baby, I love you. Ron, give Peggy a hug for me. Everybody has been so good to me. I love all of you very much. I am going to be face to face with Jesus now. Warden Baggett, thank all of you so much. You have been so good to me. I love all of you very much. I will see you all when you get there. I will wait for you.”
~”...& you & your goddess can have millions of spirit babies to populate your own planet.”~
Blast it, Colo, we keep telling you! It’s “Universe” not “Planet.” Will you please get it straight?
I swear, you people and your underestimation of human potential. Why should I be satisfied with one measly little planet? “All that God hath” actually means something, you know. Good grief.
~”The following is probably more revelation from the Romney campaign worker...”~
Now THAT’s entertainment!
Seriously, you flatter me. Here I am in my little apartment in CO, sitting at my computer in my [magic] undies, and you think I’m a Romney campaign worker. It’s cute, MHG.
I’m sorry, I’m missing the similarity. I’m speaking to the quality of FR as a site for political discourse and insight - and I think the current mood has made that quality suffer. I’m very hopeful that this problem will fade over time.
We need to define what "mainstream acceptance" is: If a Mormon-is-a-Christian-and-a-Christian-is-an-apostate (as LDS would redefine it), then we have come full circle to Smith's false vision from two unnamed personages. Now why would you expect Christians to have such welcoming arms to being labeled "corrupt" full of abominable beliefs? We're now supposed to assist Mormons in labeling what is precious to the Lord as His Word as an "abomination?"
Where’s your faith in God? If we are wrong, we will fail along with every other false doctrine.
Why did Paul & Jesus warn others about counterfeits? (Where was their faith? Is that what we should be asking?)
Paul: "Be on guard for yourselves & for all the flock...savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And men from among yourselves will rise up with deviant doctrines to lure the disciples into following them. Therefore, be on the alert, remembering that night and day for three years I did not stop warning each one of you with tears." (Acts 20:28-31)
(Sounds like a pretty high priority of Paul's, doncha think? Wasn't Smith from a Protestant-linked family? Did he not "rise up" with distinct "doctrines" and did he not "lure" other "disciples into following" him?)
Jesus: "If anyone tells you, 'Look, here is the Messiah!' or, "over here!' do not beleive it! False messiahs and false prophets will arise...to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Take note: I have told you in advance." (Matt. 24:23-25)
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?
Why did Paul make a custom of visiting with the religious people of his day when he entered a new town...heading off to the synagogue? If those proclaiming what they were was in opposition to God, didn't He have the power to defeat the false? Why do you assume God doesn't use men & women to defeat the false?
May I suggest you re-read Acts 17-19 to see how Paul and Apollos & others confronted the false & incomplete religious people of their day. (And how this wasn't because they "lacked faith?")
That’s why I leave your religion alone.
Do you tithe to the LDS church? If not, do you give a significant portion of your income to that church? Do they publish the Pearl of Great Price (PoGP)? Does the PoGP label all "Christian sects" as 100% full of "corrupt professors?" Does the PoGP say "ALL" "Christian sects...are wrong?" Does the PoGP say our creeds are "ALL" an "abomination in His sight?" Do your funds go toward missionaries whose families cannot afford to pay their own way? Do your million missionaries (accumulative total according to LDS PR Web site) have as one of their top 4 lessons to teach the doctrine of the apostasy & restoration? Does this doctrine teach a 100% apostasy of the Christian church by the 4th century? Is this doctrine taught in numerous LDS publications paid for by your (& other LDS) offerings? What about the Book of Mormon? All of the above applies to that material as well...Doesn't the BoM teach that the great "abominable church" will persecute the Saints in the latter days? Doesn't it teach that this "church is of the devil?" Doesn't it teach that there's only 2 churches, one of which the LDS church says is the Church of the Lamb...thereby pinpointing the rest to be the "church of the devil?"
And yet you have the nerve to claim you don't attack us?
***>>appropriate for you, an ex-Mormon now professing the religion of atheism,***
On the Larry King Show years ago Madaline Murray O’Hair said that the best atheists were former Mormons and Catholics.
The Official Meat of the LDS Organization based in Salt Lake City Utah.
"Use your Words of Wisdom Wisely!"
Your argument is a red herring. I don’t attack your church. My church doesn’t attack you church.
What my church does is teach its members that it is the only church that is correct, and why. Your church does the same thing, I would presume.
If you find -that- threatening, then you need a thicker skin and more confidence in your own beliefs.
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.