Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark. U.S. Army Retired |
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 much for ASKING God for the TRUTH of a matter!!
Them 'scriptures' sure were useful!!
Oh, Elsie! Welcome! We needed some color. Your spam is always so pleasant to look at! I do appreciate that you spruce it up before you copy and paste it.
| Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark. U.S. Army Retired |
Anyone with half a BRAIN can read those verse and NEVER get any reference to POLYGAMY from them at all!
Let me translate this "Reformed Mormon Speak" for you:
SCREW evidence! We KNOW it's true!!
I've heard so much about these, probably from what the LDS organization calls ANTI's; so about your TEMPLE RITES®.Where on LDS.org does one find out about them??
Why are not ALL of the LDS organizational beliefs not found on their website?
YEE hah!!
I just want to use their own writings.
Can you help me with them?
That's the idea.
Do not post to him.
Do not waste your time 'defending' anything.
LG is one, big diversion tactic.
Because it's NEWS!!!
“The right to lie in the service of your own interests is highly valued and frequently exercised”—Nero Wolfe<[p> I began this exercise when I was a full time employee of the LDS Church Education System (CES). I worked as a Seminary Principal/teacher, Institute teacher/Director, and CES Stake Coordinator of CES Programs from 1975 - 2002. (I signed a Letter of Agreement with CES to serve as the Director of the Pullman, Washington LDS Institute of Religion adjacent to Washington State University in July 2002. I resigned on August 7, 2002.) I continue to cherish the students, ward leaders and others I grew to respect in the LDS Church. I still write to a few beloved former students. I started this list in an effort to defend the church from its detractors. I was insulted to hear detractors accuse LDS church leaders of dishonesty, or other embarrassing actions. I “knew” because of my testimony the criticisms could not be true.
As an informal defender, I noted that those charging the church with dishonesty had the facts on their side from time to time. I defended the leaders in these cases by pointing out that (1) all organizations are run by humans and of course you’ll find unrepeated instances of deception by its leaders; and (2) the leaders of the LDS church are working out their salvation too as they gain wisdom and experience; of course they will err from on occasion. I created other ways to deal with the cognitive dissonance, but these were the most frequent rationalizations. It was a way of saying that while there may have been isolated instances of a leader here and there telling a lie. But I saw no evidence that church leaders engaged in a pattern of premeditated deceit.
Sometimes I caught myself and other member missionaries telling less than the whole truth, or embellishing in order to defend the church. I gave myself permission to be slightly dishonest because I was trying to achieve a higher moral purpose; or so I reasoned. I resolved not to be dishonest when defending the church. I decided to let the lives and sermons of the church leaders speak for themselves. They would have to represent the church so I could be more honest with myself and others. If detractors were right some of the time, the church and I would have to deal with it.
I began keeping a list of documented prevarications. I wanted to prove that deceit was not an established practice. Instead it was sometimes a misunderstanding, a remark out of context or an innocent mistake. As I read more church history the list began to grow, and I recognized that an institutional practice had been established by Joseph Smith and carried on by church leaders; including those who serve currently. It indicated an accepted practice and pattern. When the church or its leaders sought protection, it was acceptable to fib, deceive, minimize, exaggerate, prevaricate or outright lie. As you will read below, church leaders have admitted that deception was a useful tool used to protect the church and its leaders “when they are in tight spot,” or “to beat the devil at his own game.” They confess that lying for the Lord constitutes a greater good – and that God approves of deception – it’s lying for a superior cause; a higher law. I was devastated at first to learn these uncomfortable truths. I had not expected to find that lying for the Lord was a common and acceptable method for avoiding embarrassment. I had naively believed that when church leaders erred, they followed the steps of repentance the church taught to all its members. I believed they had the courage to face their mistakes with humility and confess or admit their shortcomings; no matter what the consequences; to live the same standards they set for the members. I believed they were honest in all their dealings with their fellow men/women.
D. Michael Quinn called the practice of deceit by church leaders “theocratic ethics.” (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, page 112) It was an ethos established by Joseph Smith to protect the church or its leaders by lying if necessary. Dan Vogel in his excellent work, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, described Smith’s philosophy. Smith used deception if it resulted in good – as he saw it. Smith had Moroni, an ancient American prophet and custodian of gold plates say, “And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. (Moroni 4:11-12). This translated into the following ethic. If deception was necessary to do good, or bring a soul to Christ, then it was worth it.
Smith also raised lying to higher moral ground when he rationalized both lying and murder in 1 Nephi 4. Nephi was inspired by God to dress in disguise and alter his voice to deceive and capture a servant and then murder Laban in order to secure an ancient historical record on plates of brass. God, according to Smith, not only approved of lying, but also murder if it brought about the greater good – however Smith defined it. In Missouri Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon threatened to kill Mormon’s who disagreed with Smith’s policies and initiatives (Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Chapter 3, “Theocratic Beginnings,” 79-103).
Smith lied in order to convince others that he could see subterranean treasure by pulling a hat over his face and peering into a magic rock placed inside (Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 82-86). Smith determined that God had ordered the prophet Abraham to lie to protect himself and his wife Sarah from harm (Abraham 2:23-25).
Smith’s arrest, trial and conviction in Bainbridge, NY for fraud in 1826 is well documented. He was found guilty for glass looking. Our modern term for Smith would be a con artist. Smith’s conscience permitted him to lie when he thought it was necessary to earn a living, though it meant conning the gullible out of their money. He claimed to see buried treasure in a rock placed in the bottom of his hat (pulled over his face) and charged a fee to locate the riches. The moral ethic at work was that if he could deceive and get away with it, and if some good could might come from it (making a living wage), then there was no harm in it. Modern scams operate on the same principle.
Smith was comfortable with lying and deception and wove it in the fabric of Mormonism as a way of dealing with undesirables, unwanted publicity, tattlers, and others who disagreed with Smith’s deception. Some excellent sources that record Smith’s deception (and the deception of others) who are nevertheless charitable to Smith are: Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Prophet’s Wife, “Elect Lady”, Polygamy’s Foe. Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2004. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1994. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1997. Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, Vintage Books, NY, 1995. B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, University of Illinois Press, 1992. (The essay on Lying for the Lord in the Hardy appendix is masterful and yet compassionate.) Also, Will Bagley’s, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK 2002, offers insight into the minds of other church leaders who used deception effectively too.
The following is a list or prevarications that I compiled as I read church history." ... Ken goes on to give 100 examples of this 'lying for the Lord' ... and that causes one to ask, 'when are these Mormonism apologists merely following the same methodology?' Several of the stories they've told over the past several months have required a long stretch to be believed. But they may absolve themselves by pleading in their minds that it is to help God's kingdom along. And thereby serve the father of lies ...
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
You’re under the impression that I care, big’ol_freeper. And, frankly, though the quoted post has little to do with my point, I disagree with Jim’s statement. It is American that we have the freedom to question a candidate based on his religion, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. If the religion is a force for good, however, it is entirely un-American to exercise that right. The pilgrims fled such discrimination; the founding fathers proscribed such discrimination from codified legitimacy; and wars have been fought to preserve our freedom from such discrimination. To make such a judgment based on the precepts of a peaceful, productive religion is to spit in the face of all that. And that is un-American.
Our freedom to do it does not make it right to do it.
Your church IS an 'organization', the website is LDS dot ORG, your weekly TEACHINGS are ORGANIZED so that EVERY church is teaching the EXACT same things on each Sunday all over the world...
Ah /sniff. Do you just keep that in your clipboard so you can spam it on every thread? Hey hey look a Mormon thread....CTRL-V. Little effort and very tired. Someone needs new material.
Let's go fishing!
Just kidding ...
Didja hear about the fellow that liked to fish SO much that he married a girl that had worms?
Bada boom bada bing...
Yes, but the -Church- does not engage in partisan politics. It promotes civic involvement by its members, but makes no effort to dictate political ideology or promotion of any particular candidate. Our partisanship is our own. Your point is a tangent.
Please, do not post to me anymore unless your posts are well-thought-out and germane to the topic at hand. I don’t have the time for drivel.
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.