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.)
And to think that I praised you on anther post :( It was too bad that after Joshua (roughly) the Jews started getting thier butts kicked and enslaved all the time. Interesting how god moves Heaven and Earth for his chosen people and then abandons them.
Joshua
10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. (10:12-13)
In a divine type of daylight savings time, God makes the sun stand still so that Joshua can get all his killing done before dark.
10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day
10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.
Actually just bait to try and keep him on topic :)
THE MAN WHO BOUGHT A HOUSE
A PARABLE
by Richard Packham
In this town there lived a man who had been able to save enough money from his hard work that he decided that he was now able to afford a very nice house for his family. In one of the nicer parts of town was a beautiful old house that appeared to be vacant, and he often went by and looked at it from the street. The more he looked at it, the more he fell in love with this old house.
One day as he was standing admiring this house, he was approached by a very nice-looking gentleman who said to him: “I have noticed you frequently admiring this fine old house. I happen to be the agent for the owner, and I am authorized to sell it, if I can find a buyer.” This was, of course, good news to the man, since the more he had looked at the house, the more he wanted it for himself and his family.
The agent took the man into the house and showed him through it, and everything the man saw made him want the house even more. The house was beautifully designed and built, with skill and imagination, in a style which was no longer very popular among most people, but which he and his family had always found attractive. He could picture in his mind how happy and comfortable his family would be there. It seemed that his fondest dream was about to come true. The man bought the house.
Before the man moved his family into the house, he asked the agent about the usual inspections, for termites, dry rot and other possible structural problems. The agent told him that everything had been inspected thoroughly by his staff. “You can take my word for it: this house is sound and solid. It is the finest house in the city!” The man thought for a moment that he should ask to see the inspection reports, but the agent was the kind of person that inspired trust and confidence, and the man had a strong feeling deep in his heart that the agent would not try to deceive him about something so important.
The man and his family moved into their home, and it was even more lovely and comfortable than he had imagined. They invited their friends and relatives to visit them, and they were able to entertain them graciously and hear their guests’ praises of their beautiful home.
One evening his brother was visiting. The brother was a meddlesome and sometimes unpleasant person, but the man tried to be gracious to him because he was his brother.
“This is a very lovely old house you have,” said the brother.
“Thank you for the compliment,” replied the man.
“How is the foundation? Sometimes these old houses have structural problems.”
“Don’t worry about that,” responded the man. “Everything has been inspected and is in good order.”
“Who inspected it?”
The man began to get irritated with his brother. “It’s really none of your business, but I’ll be happy to tell you. The seller’s agent had it inspected.”
“Did you examine the report yourself?”
This was really going too far, the man felt. But he answered anyway, “I didn’t have to. The agent read the reports and told me that they were in order.”
“How can you trust the agent that much?” the brother asked, shaking his head.
“I pity you if you have to go through life without trust, without belief, without relying on the goodness of others! Sometimes you just know in your heart that you can trust someone.”
The brother said nothing, but got up to leave. “I’ll maybe poke around a little outside and look over your foundation. I’m not an expert, but I do have some experience with these things.”
“I do not give you permission to go nosing about my house or grounds. You are just looking for something that will give you an excuse to find fault with my home and to spoil my enjoyment of it!”
“I assure you that I am only motivated by my concern for you as my brother. I will not cause any damage.” And with that, he left the house.
As he looked around the grounds and examined the house, he had to admit that it was beautiful. But he also knew that paint could hide many problems. Near a corner, in the back, he found a small, almost invisible door that appeared to lead into the basement. It had been sealed shut with a half-dozen screws. He went back inside and asked the man: “Are you aware of the door into the basement which has been sealed shut?”
“Of course I am aware of it!”
“Why is it sealed shut?”
“Because there is absolutely no need for anyone to go into the basement. There is nothing there.”
“Have you ever been there?”
“No, of course not! Why would I want to go down there? I’m sure that it’s just dank and musty, and there’s nothing there.”
“I think it would pay to take a look, to check the foundation.”
“Absolutely not!” shouted the man. “This is MY house! It is MY basement! I have no interest in going there, and I forbid you to do so! I told you that the foundation has already been inspected. Now please leave me in peace!”
Rather than argue with the man, the brother left. But the sealed door continue to bother him, and the basement which it concealed. A few weeks later, when the brother knew that the man and his family were going to be away for a day or two, the brother took a screwdriver and a flashlight to the man’s house and carefully opened the sealed door.
He had to stoop to enter the dark basement. The man had been right: there was nothing down there, except the posts and beams and braces that held up the house. As he crept among them, lighting his way with the flashlight, he noticed that the beams and posts had thick coats of paint. Everything was covered with paint. He took his pocket knife and scraped away the paint in a few spots, and where he had removed the paint, instead of solid wood he found a lacy, delicate framework of worm holes. He scraped away paint from some of the other structural members, in all parts of the basement, and found that the wood fiber was missing in all of them, either having been eaten by worms or termites, or having crumbled with dry rot. He was horrified. Not a single beam or post or brace could be relied on. He wondered what could be holding up the great weight of the house. It seemed to be only the paint which was covering up the rot. He almost imagined he could feel the house settling, having removed the little bit of paint, and he urgently wanted to escape. He found his way to the door, and closed it carefully after he was again in the sunshine. But his mind was troubled.
As soon as the man and his family returned, the brother came to see him. “I have some terrible news for you,” he said. He confessed that he had entered the basement, contrary to the man’s order. “But I know you will forgive me when I tell you what I found.” He then told the man that his entire house was in danger of falling down because of the worms, termites and rot in the structural members in the basement.
But instead of thanking his brother, the man flew into a rage. “You are telling me this only to rob me of the pleasure I have in living in this beautiful house! How can you attack me like this? How can you say such terrible things about a house that is so beautiful? You obviously are my enemy. You are jealous of me because of my house. You have made up these lies with the sole purpose of trying to destroy my happiness and to cast aspersions upon my house, the agent who sold it to me and the people who inspected it and pronounced it sound. Get out! And because you have become my enemy, I never wish to see you again!”
The brother tried to calm the man. “I assure you that I am not your enemy. I am acting only with your good at heart. Why would I want otherwise?”
The man would not be calmed. “You are trying to destroy my love for this house. Therefore you must have an evil motive.”
“Please,” said the brother. “Come down with me to your basement, and I will let you see with your own eyes what I have found.”
“I am not interested in seeing anything that you have to show me. You are obviously such an evil person that you would stoop to any level to deceive me into believing your lies. You have probably planted phony evidence in my basement. You would twist and misinterpret anything I found so that it would appear to support your filthy lies about my house. No! I will not go into the basement with you! I don’t care about your delusions, and I don’t have the time to humor you.”
The brother was puzzled by the man’s obstinacy. He couldn’t understand why he wouldn’t at least look in the basement himself. Perhaps, by replacing the beams, or by taking other measures in time, the house could be saved. But if nothing was done, the house would surely collapse, sooner or later, perhaps injuring someone.
Seeing that he could not help, the brother left, sad that he had been unjustly labeled an “enemy.”
In spite of the man’s confidence in the soundness of his house, his brother’s words did trouble him for a few days. Finally, he could no longer resist the temptation, and he took a flashlight and crept through the small door into the basement. He looked around and saw where his brother had scraped the paint away to expose the fragile, rotten timbers.
He was furious! Why had his brother done this? He went upstairs to a cabinet and got a bucket of paint and a brush, and carefully repainted all the places that his brother had scraped away. “There!” he said, as he screwed the door back into place.
He decided that he would not tell his wife and family what had happened, because it would only disturb them and spoil the love and pleasure they enjoyed, living in such a beautiful house.
-Richard Packham
Please..!!
The whole mormon faith is BASED and FOUNDED on what the first mormon said.
Are you saying you don't care what J. Smith said?
What about B. Young? You don't care what he said?
What about all the following prophets?
BTW, an eon is one heck of lot longer than 150-160 years.....
: )
No just taking hints from the Mormon Bashers.
Much of the disagreement between us was thought up by the Pagan Lawyer Tertulian. The doctrines he thought up were not taught by the Bishop of Rome, who said Tertulian's doctrines were heresy.
I believe the Bishop of Rome who said that.
My wife also wants the last word in any discussions we have.
I have found that it is wise to let her have the last word.
Nice bob and weave...And duck!
I pray that you see the TRUTH....Dan.
I didn't post first to you Mary. I only go after anti's and you got caught in the cross fire. And I pretty much consider anyone posting on these anti Mormon threads fair game anyway :)
You can believe what you like but my God doesn’t send babies to hell because they are innocent. They don’t have accountability until they’re older and understand the concept and what they’re doing.
You keep spouting Mormon Theology? When does your religion say they are accountable?
Yep, Christmas gift...Hope the forum police don’t see it.
WHAT!?!?!
I've never heard of your pagan Jacoby....ROFLOL!!
No, Dan...I've read the D & C, the PoGP, and the BOM.....Bottom line is they don't line up with the B I B L E.
Indulge us.....
List 4
Sun and the Moon, for an entire day? Do you actually believe it happened?
Many years ago Ripley’s believe it or Not stated that one morning in Scotland TWO suns came up. Probably ight refraction, the same thing that caused a sundial to move backwards.
So you believe in the Bible and Ripleys Believe it or Not? I guess that makes sense : )
Great post, nesnah...sad.
I do. I also let my wife wear shoes and get out of the kitchen at times.
It is wise to duck when a woman wants the last word.
I let them have the last several.
Michael Medved, not five minutes ago, said this:
“Would I be proud to support Gov. Romney? I would. I like almost everything about him.”
Donald Trump, not exactly a conservative, but a smart fellow, just said (about 10 minutes ago):
“Mitt Romney is a very talented guy and in my opinion has done a fabulous job”
Add to the mix Paul Weyrich, Judge Robert Bork, Jones III, the founder of the American pro-Life movement (who I can never recall his name) ...
Limbaugh today said he could support Romney, although he doesn’t make endorsements.
Will get back to you with some other names.
The Church had a University in England use their computer to generate a cross reference between them.
It was not done by BYU because BYU didn't have software capable of doing it.
The cross references are printed at the bottom of the pages where they apply. You can buy the books and compare what is said in the cross referenced verses. They agree.
There is also a Topical Guide which is sorted by subject matter. You can also check each book by subject matter. They also agree with each other.
Tom Tancredo, Jim DeMint, Jay Sekulow ...
This ain't a kitchen.
PSSSSSTTTTTT, Dan....it's an internet c o m m u n i c a t i o n board....
If you want to dodge, duck, bob and weave...go to a used car lot.
Personally speaking...it appeared that woman pretty much made you dumb-struck.
But I could be mistaken again.....
~”The board hires and supervises the CEO. I would like
to know if he raised the issue...”~
I kind of would too, from an academic standpoint. I don’t think there’s any way we can know, though. So, I suppose it comes down to whether one is predisposed to give him the benefit of the doubt, or to assume his villainy. I choose the former. Who knows, perhaps he decided to take an extra 10% of that money and kick it to charity? There’s no way to tell.
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.