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.)
~”It further is interesting that the LDS church is mobilizing a cadre of apologists...”~
You’re being too smart by half, Greyfoxx. I guess I’m still waiting for my call from Salt Lake to “mobilize.” We’re passionate, not organized.
What I have seen is - at the local ward level - discussions of how Romney’s campaign is raising the profile of the Church, and how we should be prepared to answer any questions that come our way. Sinister, no?
So, go take a hike....
Knock some snow around....
Take some deep breaths...go enjoy God's creations.
anybody that reads this punch this name into your engine elijah able this will show you how full of it the mormon church is over the year they seem to have changed there mind
TERMINOLOGY DIFFERENCES: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/terminologymain.htm#GODHEAD Online resouces(video links at the bottom): http://www.utlm.org/navonlineresources.htm
The article clearly says: Two hundred graduating students at Brigham Young University-Hawaii have been urged to use the Internet - including blogs and other forms of "new media" - to contribute to a national conversation about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Are you seriously trying to tell us, Tantiboh, that this "national conversation" is going to be relegated to only "religious" blogs...to only "religious" "forms of 'new media'? Really? These 200 graduate students, in an election year of all years where a Mormon is running for POTUS, are only going to seek out "religious" online forums?
Got your popcorn popped? :-)
~”It might be kinda cool to rule over your very own planet...”~
You vastly underestimate human potential.
Geez, the Mormons are already lying here in the first question.
QUESTION ONE!
Here is the D and C passage......now, they say this is only a “command,” not a “prophecy.”
Gee, what does this sound like to you???
“Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city a New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be creared in this generation.
5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.”
VERILY THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS AWAY UNTIL A HOUSE SHALL BE BUILT UNTO THE LORD....
Verily means truly, truly. That is a prophecy from God saying this WILL happen.
It didn’t.
Therefore, it was a false prophecy.
This was NOT a “command” only. Was it a command? Yes.
But, it was a prophecy also. Like most of the time, the Mormon Church has some truth in their answers.
But, like Satan appears as an angel of light, the truth is mixed with deception and lies.
re - this mormon explanation: prov 18:2 A fool finds no pleasure in understanding
but delights in airing his own opinions.
Golden plates
"Reformed Egyptian"
Roseta Stone
It seems that some people have looked to the past and learned from it. I remember when John Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected president and he and the Pope held power over the country and mandated that the only recognized religion in America was Catholicism.
Do we REALLY want to relive those days? I wouldn’t think so and I think it is preventable by making this crucial election all about the faith of the candidates. We need to stop looking at the qualification such as leadership ability and concentrate on which church he will install as the national religion.
(I’m sorry I have to insert a sarcasm tag but some people don’t recognize it when it should be obvious)
They aren’t innocent......they have original sin like everybody else.
The history of Mormonism is fascinating. It intertwines with the great migration and development of the American west.
~”Are you seriously trying to tell us, Tantiboh, that this “national conversation” is going to be relegated to only “religious” blogs...”~
No. I’m trying to tell you that a strictly religious topic - such as this one - belongs in the Religious category on FR.
The only reason this topic overlaps with politics at all is because the anti-Mormons insist on it. The article does NOT clearly state that the students were urged to use the Internet to advance any particular candidate - just to engage about their faith. If you see that as political, that’s your business. I don’t think such an argument can be rationally made.
This thread is a provocative critique about Mormonism. It will almost certainly become combative. I submit that the Religion section’s particular rules are the most effective way to maintain some level of decorum.
I was a Mormon missionary in Italy. They have an expression:
“E beh?”
Loosely translated, it means, “So, you want a medal or something?”
There’s so much spinning going on in those answers that they could dig their way to China if they called it an earth-boring machine.
~”They aren’t innocent......they have original sin like everybody else.”~
You’d better tell that to your fellow Evangelicals. It seems there’s some confusion amongst you. Are children innocent or not? Are children damned or not?
LDS doctrine teaches that man is punished for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. It teaches that children are innocent, and that they begin to become accountable - hence capable of sin - at the age of eight. Therefore, we don’t baptize children under that age.
“I do, that is why I call on you Anti Mormon Cabal members : )”
Quite amusing project, since Joseph Smith ran a grand Cabal that really did incite people to murder, I think your affections are quite misplaced.
Don’t you think it would be more appropriate for you, an ex-Mormon now professing the religion of atheism, to be calling all the atheists in to defend the cultish assertions of Mormonism?... You who looks into a pencil holder on his desk to look for God, sees a pencil holder and denies the existence of the pencil holder designer. You’re a piece of work you are. Do you ever have an adult discussion or even try to? (sigh)
Thanks for the Pingy ...
Who is in what corner???
:)
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.