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.)
ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A more recent example of Cody Judy, the nut who held President Hunter hostage and threatened to blow him up with a bomb.
Add in the Mark Hoffman murders, and other general nutcases out to get publicity or worse and one would have to be “nuts” NOT to have the kind of security that the Church does.
Think of the words of Christ, and ponder on the murder of all the early apostles. One can never be too careful.
Luke 21:17
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.
I've been in there, it's not opulent. It's modest and clean, and small, I think 2 bedrooms if I remember right. The living room has a about double the amount of furniture, for obvious family visits, etc, but it's a very normal apartment on the inside.
I don't know how much it cost to build verses the market value because of it's location, but I seriously doubt it's 1.5 million. Church leadership does not live in luxury, and the apartment is a fairly recent addition. They used to just travel back and forth form their homes, but it's a different world, and security has made the change essential.
And the other members of the First Presidency do not have this protection, they just commute from their homes.
Yes, those types I would definitely be afraid of if I were a security person.
If you don’t think profiling is a good thing in security situations, even a little bit, you should be on the democrat blogs, calling for the repeal of the border fence and security checks!
See previous post.
You are tamer than some, and actually have had good things to say about the LDS, Mitt's family, etc, so no, I’m not paranoid about you either.
The atheist denies God because the atheist wants there to be no God, so that the atheist is a god unto himself, a moral law giver unto himself, a purpose solely in himself. Your kindness will be treated as baubles for the atheist to toy with.
Why would I not want there to be another life after death? I have the same ego as you two. I simply choose not to be deluded, it is a choice.
Correct! There is hope for you yet ^^
*** You believe the Bible to be the absolute true word of God, complete and perfect, all 900 different versions. ***
900 versions is a bogus argument. Read what the KJV translators said in the orighonal preface to the KJV bible.
• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
• 2 As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
~”Why don’t YOU set us straight; instead of just HINTING that something is amiss?”~
Why don’t YOU take a close look at your citations to make sure you have the words right?
I’ll give you another hint: it’s a minor flaw.
Then why are there other versions if the KJV is the WORD OF GOD?
Do you also believe the Earth is 10,000 years old, that a frog led an army, that Joshua stopped the Earth and the Moon, that little children are born sinners, that slitting a goats throat can save you from sin, etc. etc? LOL
..and what kind of prophet are you? False, like Joe Smith or a true prophet of some sort???
***Then why are there other versions if the KJV is the WORD OF GOD?***
Go back and read your statement aboutg 600 versions of the bible.
Read again the statement from the KJV translators. They NEVER claimed their translation was the be all to end all.
And where did you get something about a frog leading an army?
Great...!! I'd think LDS, Inc. would welcome an independent look into that. Let's ask for an independent investigation!!
I don't know how much it cost to build verses the market value because of it's location, but I seriously doubt it's 1.5 million. Church leadership does not live in luxury, and the apartment is a fairly recent addition. They used to just travel back and forth form their homes, but it's a different world, and security has made the change essential.
That 1.5 million $$$ was supposely pegged about 8 or 9 years ago....Maybe that's right, maybe that's wrong. Why don't you ask LDS, Inc. to clear it up? I would think that that transparency would be welcomed. Wouldn't you?
And the other members of the First Presidency do not have this protection, they just commute from their homes.
While we are at it...let's publish the compensation for members of the First Presidency and ALL the top members. Why the secrecy? Why wouldn't you want to have your church from top to bottom open and honest about the finances?
I will ask you again....What do shopping malls, Maui hotels, and cattle ranches, etc.. have to with winning souls to Jesus? Why is LDS, Inc.....worth BILLIONS of $$$?
What are they doing with that money?
Nobody yet here...has even approached telling me the percentage of those BILLIONS...that is actually given to charity. That just doesn't seem biblical...to me.
Admit it.
No...we leave the bad mouthing to you and yours....
So now you are saying that the Bible is mens interpretation of Gods intentions? We may actually start agreeing.
And where did you get something about a frog leading an army?
Just a little something that I read about in the Old Testament. You know, that old book full of myths and fables : )
***Just a little something that I read about in the Old Testament. You know, that old book full of myths and fables : ) ***
I’ve read the Bible through many times as recreational reading and have NEVER found anything about a frog leading an army. You must not have done the same.
*****So now you are saying that the Bible is mens interpretation of Gods intentions? We may actually start agreeing. ****
Go read (READ, NOT SKIM) the ENTIRE preface FROM THE TRANSLATOR TO THE READER first then write what you may.
http://www.pb.org/npbdocs/kjtrans.html
We aren’t the ones who are deluded, LeGrande.
Placemark
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.