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.)
I have noting for awhile that there appears to be a organized effort to convince Freepers that Romney is a conservative. I say this because too many posts use the same verbage. Whether is an attack on Fred (too old, lacks energy etc.) or other candidates or support for Mitt they parrot each other and they absolutely lie about Romney’s very well documented record. It follows the same pattern that you see in the MSM when an organized attack on the President occurs...they all say the same thing at the very same time. Just my two cents for what its worth.
To hell with principle, winning is everything, eh, Tant? Winning with Mitt is losing for the country.
Uh, this is Free Republic. We advocate for conservatives/conservatism not RINOS/liberalism. We will continue to advocate for life, family, liberty, national security, individual freedom, limited government, low taxes, originalist judges and the constitution, etc, regardless of who wins the current election. You can shove your dose of RINO reality where the sun don’t shine. I’m sure it’ll do wonders for you.
That also explains why anyone would consider Huckabee a conservative. Huckabee is a one issue candidate, abortion, everything else is far left. His fair tax scheme would be a train wreck for the economy, not to mention unenforceable. It would take twice as many IRS agenst to collect the sales tax. But Huckabee know that, and he knows that it would never pass. He is just playing the religious conservatives for fools, like Elmer Gantry.
Let’s see how Mitt fares...
life - who knows what he really is committed to??
family - seems to be pro-family, if we judge by pictures (he did name his son “Tagg” - What’s that about??
liberty - forcing people to buy insurance or face penalties isn’t freedom. It is totalitarianism.
national security - no experience, who knows??
individual freedom - at least he if for free markets
limited government - maybe
low taxes - no. He is for high fees, judging by his budgets
originalist judges - no. he is for “diverse judges”, based on his own policy as demonstrated in MA
constitution - I’d give him a low grade here, based on his view of the Second Amendment and his abortion history.
I don’t think Willard Mitt Romney passes the smell test here.
~”To hell with principle, winning is everything, eh, Tant?”~
I’ll take it over losing, thanks.
~”Winning with Mitt is losing for the country.”~
Our opinions differ.
So, in your world, there is no winning? Since no “real conservative” has a shot at this stage, the country will lose no matter what? Or are Huckabee, Giuliani, or McCain more palatable to you?
It’s a sad place, your world. You should plant flowers.
~”We will continue to advocate for life, family, liberty, national security, individual freedom, limited government, low taxes, originalist judges and the constitution, etc, regardless of who wins the current election.”~
Couldn’t agree more. I do believe this is a disagreement of methodology, not ideology. It’s tougher to implement what you advocate when you’re out of power.
~”You can shove your dose of RINO reality where the sun don’t shine.”~
Fair enough. I’ll keep you posted how it goes in the real world!
Thanks for the discussion.
You beg the question by jumping to the assumption that the religion you cite is indeed "a force for good."
If you go to this ex-Mormon's snapshot of the fruits of Mormonism in Utah, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1940378/posts (post #165), you'll see it's not the "force for good" you make it out to be -- even on a social level...(an eternal spiritual level is another discussion).
I've also made the argument on several threads that a political leader who has seen his respected religious leaders shift gears on key theological tenets (polygamy; blacks as priests; Adam as God; blood atonement; exceptions granted for abortions; etc.) is more likely to feel free to swing free & loose with his own positions--especially on social positions. I mean, hey, if I think my God is at times free & loose on the number of partners, they what's the difference if I embrace gay civil unions (as Romney does) or tax-funded domestic partnership benefits (as Romney does)?
Matt. 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
MY world is not that sad. And save the flowers for Mitt's political grave. If he buys the nomination, Hillary will bury him.
Colo, your link is no good.
Signey Rigdon was from the “Cambellite” movement. What’s interesting is that he influenced Smith to introduce weekly communion services.
What’s weird is that in the Mormon church, instead of bread and wine (or grape juice) on a weekly basis, they instituted bread and water.
My conclusion: they didn’t want to talk about the blood of Christ. They wanted to talk about water, which is only symbolic of a one-time baptism. The blood of Christ is not in their repertoire. Why not, they are gods-becoming, and teach that they will be on a level with Jesus (the spirit brother of saton).
Hey! If they talk about the blood of Christ, and the sacrifice He had to make, all those Gods-becoming might have to consider that in some future planet, if they indeed will be gods on a parity with Jesus, they might have to hang on a cross and shed their blood to have parity with Jesus Christ.
Not an appealing thought when talking about conversion to the LDS, eh?
Nevermind, we’ll just have water and drop this blood thing. That could get these gods-becoming a little nervous.
You MittChicks kill me.
Though I will concur with one thing, he has great hair. Its the only Reaganesque thing about of course...
“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.”
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The REAL prophets of God were NOT “entitled to their opinions” God commanded that His prophets only say and do what He told them to...
The prophets were extremely carefully to only speak the oracles of god and not uttert careless stupid “oppinions”...They got into trouble with god when they did their own thing or spouted off their own “opinions” or disobeyed God...
Because mormons say that Joe Smith and Bing young were prophets like Moses, we’ll begin with him...
Because of disobedience, God allowed Moses to see the Promised Land but he was never allowed to enter it...
Because of Uriah and bathsheba etc, the son of David died and he had trouble in his family and kingdom all his life ...
Samson had his eyes plucked out, and was treated like a beast of burden...
Jonah disobeyed God and refused to go and prophesy to Nineveh...He travelled in the opposite direction and was swallowed by the whale...
Mittchicks...
Rigdon came with his congregation(s) ~ I think in the end he was determined to be a bit nuts though. It's a mixed bag regarding the degree of early Christian Church movement and LDS entanglements ~ but they have been acknowledged by many researchers to have been numerous. Probably worth a doctorate or two for some candidate for a Ph.D in history. I do know Mormons are more open about it than DofC folks, and you can send them screaming from the church on Wednesday night you bring this up with the Church of Christ.
That's an interesting take, considering their disdain for the cross, about the Blood of Christ.
In my years as a mormon, I never really heard the reason for the day-old bread and water...I just figured it was thriftiness. I did wonder at times if the servers who tore the bread into little bitsy pieces washed their hands before doing it, though.
There you go again, mixing politics and religion. Your point would be valid if -I- were taking over the world and selling my soul to do it.
I’m not, yet. The plans are being laid, however.
Choosing the candidate I see as most able to advance my conservative values, however, is not selling my soul. It’s pragmatism in the pursuit of conservatism - an art at which we are woefully inept, as a movement.
Quick dose of reality from the real world there T
Mitt will not be the nominee.
His run is been built up on too large an investment mostly of his own money. If not for that, given his negatives he would poll less than 5 percent.
The RNC knows this.
The RNC is dumb but not stupid. His record is not popular with the fiscal and security minded conservatives and his relgion is an issue in the large southern base. Sorry its politics.
Look for a brokered convention unless Thompson clearly breaks loose super Tuesday. If it is a brokered convention it will be Thompson by a deal or another unknown at this point.
~”In my years as a mormon, I never really heard the reason for the day-old bread and water...”~
That sort of lack of knowledge about your former faith explains a lot about why you left. The question you ask is common knowledge, right there in the D&C.
~”I did wonder at times if the servers who tore the bread into little bitsy pieces washed their hands before doing it, though.”~
We’re instructed to. Usually, we do.
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.