Thanks Jim. 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.)
| Thanks Jim. U.S. Army Retired |
mark
~”Some of you guys are pushing the abortionist, gay agenda advancing, gun grabbing, big government socialist nanny state lying liberal RINO BECAUSE of his religion.”~
While I reject your premise that Romney is as despicable as you say, it’s true that some Mormons are supporting him for his religion. Some of the people on this thread have seen me decry that in the past, too. Still, the number is not as high as some like to proclaim. I would venture to guess that half the Mormons on FR have been politically behind candidates other than Romney. I’m in the part of the other half that finds him to be an acceptable, and even admirable, candidate in his own right.
~”Conservatives are pushing back.”~
Yeah. By supporting Huckabee. Give me a break. If conservatives were pushing back against Romney, what happened to Hunter? Where’s Thompson going? Tancredo? Brownback? Even combined these people don’t amount to a serious candidate.
There’s a peculiar brand of narrow vision amongst many conservative activists that seems to compel them to proclaim that imperfection is unacceptable. As represented by the polls - where the best conservatives have been utterly defeated - these conservative activists aren’t nearly so influential as they like to think. Is Romney perfect? Of course not. He’s the best available option, though, and to doggedly hold to any of the failed candidacies in the face of this cold reality is to cut off your nose to spite your face. Tancredo’s gone. Hunter and Brownback are DOA. Thompson’s singing his swan song. Between Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, and Romney, I will choose Mitt Romney each and every time.
~”And it’s perfectly within their rights.”~
Of course it is within their rights.
~”NOTHING un-American about it.”~
Of course it is un-American. There’s very little that could be more un-American. Killing puppies is all that comes to mind.
~”If you can’t stand the heat, get out!”~
I’m here, aren’t I? The heat doesn’t bother me at all. That’s the dividend of being cocky.
Is this an FRexample of ‘Taunting the Tiger’?
~”If you do not wish to waste your valuable time reading it; don’t.”~
Oh, don’t worry, that part’s already sorted.
Re. your post 190:
A great re-post!!! I hadn’t seen before this example of Jim Robinson’s take on Mormons complaining of the FREE airing of opinions about Romney’s core faith.
Thanks!
Well, I got the song already to go, just in case......
You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim, da do da do...
~”Is this an FRexample of ‘Taunting the Tiger’?”~
Of course not. But if I disagree with a person, I’m going to say so, whether or not that person happens to be the owner of the site where I’m saying it. If Jim’s married, I’m sure his wife would agree that he’s not always right.
I, however, am single, so I’m never wrong. The question remains open as to which direction the cause and effect goes.
Jim’s a grown-up. He can take it. He’s dealt with far worse than my little jabs. I would presume that the last thing he wants on FR is an echo chamber.
They were being polite. Larry’s the one who said he had a wide stance.
Oops, forgot the ping.
Its ok neither does he.
It’s all in his record. Look it up.
And it’s not Huckabee. Conservatives are supporting Thompson and Hunter, the only conservatives in the race. Every poll we’ve run on FR shows FReepers supporting Thompson/Hunter by huge majorities. Thompson/Hunter are currently supported by 80% of all FReepers responding to our poll:
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=207
Free Republic is a conservative forum. We advocate for conservatism and for conservative candidates. Liberals, RINOs, nanny staters and liars need not apply.
Jim,
“Liberals, RINOs, nanny staters and liars”
Direct hit on Romney on all four.
You sunk his battleship!
For an earlier post that questioned the verbiage that a temple shall be built in Missouri in the 1900’s, here’s what the Jack Lynch “Guide to Grammar and Style” says about shall vs. will:
An old distinction, more common in British than in American English, still comes up from time to time. To wit: will is usually the simple future indicative: “This will happen,” “You will be surprised.” Shall is related to the subjunctive, and means “Let it be so,”
see http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/s.html
~”It’s all in his record. Look it up.”~
I’ve seen the record, I’ve studied it here for months. There’s plenty of grounds on which to criticize Romney. He is not my first pick. But, frankly, to paint him in the harsh way that FR has painted him is histrionics - and most of it was generated in an effort to advance Thompson. Well, it didn’t work. Now what?
~”Every poll we’ve run on FR shows FReepers supporting Thompson/Hunter by huge majorities.”~
That’s true, but FR draws a particular kind of conservative - perhaps even the best ones. But to extrapolate that to the Republican base as a whole is a mistake - FR participants are not a representative sample. It’s cold reality, and it means that we will not be nominating a perfect conservative. The time for advocating Hunter, Thompson, etc. has passed. At this time, I’m advocating that we take what we can get when we can get it. That means compromising our choice. Not our principles - we can fight for the rest of them another day. But we’ll have a whole lot less heartburn over our principles with Romney than we will with Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, or a Democrat.
~”We advocate for conservatism and for conservative candidates.”~
Well and good. But how effective is that advocacy if you don’t win?
Need a citation for entanglement of the Christian Church with Mormonism. I only know of an individual, Sidney Rigdon, who was indeed from the Christian Church. Don’t know anything about the other group’s entanglements.
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.