![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
m (→) |
m (bot use legacy Detail template) |
||
(65 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{ | + | {{Main Page}} |
− | + | <onlyinclude> | |
− | + | {{H1 | |
− | | | + | |L=Answers to Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves/Questions 29-58 |
− | | | + | |H=Response to "Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves" (Questions 29-58) |
− | | | + | |S= |
− | + | |L1=Response to claim: "29. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, why did he fail to realize that “Elias” is the N.T. form of the name “Elijah”? (D & C 110:12,13 and 1 Kings 17:1 and James 5:17) How could Elijah (Elias) have appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple as two different people?" | |
− | + | |L2=Response to claim: "30. If children have no sins until they are eight years old, why are they baptized at age eight to wash away non-existent sins?" | |
− | | | + | |L3=Response to claim: "31. How could the Garden of Eden have been in Missouri when the Pearl of Great Price declares that it was in the vicinity of Assyria and had the Euphrates and Hiddekel Rivers in it?" |
− | + | |L4=Response to claim: "32. Brigham Young said, 'The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy'. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269) Why did the Mormons yield to the pressure of the government and stop practicing polygamy?" | |
+ | |L5=Response to claim: "33. Heber C. Kimball stated, “We are the people of Deseret, she shall be no more Utah: we will have our own name”. Why did this prophecy fail?" | ||
+ | |L6=Response to claim: "34. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily?" | ||
+ | |L7=Response to claim: "35. When Christ died, did darkness cover the land for three days or for three hours?" | ||
+ | |L8=Response to claim: "36. If the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, why have the Mormons changed it?" | ||
+ | |L9=Response to claim: "37. If God speaks through a prophet, why do Mormons vote on whether or not to receive and authorize it?" | ||
+ | |L10=Response to claim: "38. It has been established that the 'Sensen' manuscript was simply a common Egyptian burial papyrus. Why do the Mormons still accept the Book of Abraham which was translated from that manuscript?" | ||
+ | |L11=Response to claim: "39. Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of “Reformed Egyptian”, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed?" | ||
+ | |L12=Response to claim: "40. Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to heaven?" | ||
+ | |L13=Response to claim: "41. Why do Mormons not study Hebrew and Greek so that they can intelligently discuss the accuracy of the translation of the Bible?" | ||
+ | |L14=Response to claim: "42. Joseph Smith prepared fourteen Articles of Faith. Why has the original No. 11 been omitted?" | ||
+ | |L15=Response to claim: "43. According to Hebrews 7:24, the Melchizedek Priesthood is not transferable. Why do Mormons pass it from one to another?" | ||
+ | |L16=Response to claim: "44. If Mormonism came as a revelation from God, why are the Mormon Temple Oaths almost identical to the oaths of the Masonic Lodge?" | ||
+ | |L17=Response to claim: "45. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever?" | ||
+ | |L18=Response to claim: "46. If genealogies are important, why does the New Testament tell Christians to avoid them?" | ||
+ | |L19=Response to claim: "47. The Bible says, 'The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin'. Why did Brigham Young say that there are some sins which can be atoned for only by the shedding of ones own blood?" | ||
+ | |L20=Response to claim: "48. God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made. Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons?" | ||
+ | |L21=Response to claim: "49. Why do Mormons insist that Ezekiel 37:15-22 is about two books instead of about two kingdoms as god Himself explained in verse 22?" | ||
+ | |L22=Response to claim: "50. If Acts 3:20, 21 is a prophecy about the restoration of Mormonism, why didn’t Jesus return in 1830?" | ||
+ | |L23=Response to claim: "51. Revelation 14:6,7 is part of the body of prophecy about the future Great Tribulation. How could that passage have been fulfilled by Moroni in 1830?" | ||
+ | |L24=Response to claim: "52. In light of Ezekiel 28:13-15 and Hebrews 1:5, how can Satan and Jesus be brothers (as the Mormons teach)?" | ||
+ | |L25=Response to claim: "53. If no person ever receives the Holy Spirit before baptism or without the laying on of hands, how does a Mormon explain the case of Cornelius?" | ||
+ | |L26=Response to claim: "54. If baptism for the dead was a Christian ceremony, why did Paul use the pronoun “they” rather than “we” or “ye”? Why did he exclude himself and other Christians when referring to it?" | ||
+ | |L27=Response to claim: "55. Since the Bible says that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife, how can Mormons claim that polygamy is proper for New Testament Christians?" | ||
+ | |L28=Response to claim: "56. Why does the Mormon church teach that the broad way leads to the Terrestrial Heaven when Jesus taught that it leads to destruction?" | ||
+ | |L29=Response to claim: "57. Are you sincere enough about your personal salvation that you will carefully study the following Bible references to discover the Bible’s way to salvation?" | ||
+ | |L30=Response to claim: "58. Are you courageous enough to personally receive the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart and follow the truth regardless of ridicule, antagonism or persecution?" | ||
+ | |T=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves (Questions 1-28) | ||
+ | |A=Contender Ministries | ||
+ | |<=[[../Questions 1-28|Responses to Questions 1-28]] | ||
+ | |>= | ||
}} | }} | ||
+ | </onlyinclude> | ||
− | == | + | {{ChartQAMSAT29-58}} |
− | {{ | + | ==Response to claim: "29. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, why did he fail to realize that “Elias” is the N.T. form of the name “Elijah”? (D & C 110:12,13 and 1 Kings 17:1 and James 5:17) How could Elijah (Elias) have appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple as two different people?"== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | + | |claim=29. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, why did he fail to realize that “Elias” is the N.T. form of the name “Elijah”? (D & C 110:12,13 and 1 Kings 17:1 and James 5:17) How could Elijah (Elias) have appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple as two different people? | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|It is certainly true that "Elias" is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Elijah." And, there are times within scripture where "Elias" is clearly meant to refer to the Elijah of 1 Kings. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|27|47-49}}, {{s||Romans|11|2}}, {{s||James|5|17}}). }} | ||
*However, there are also cases when the name "Elias" is applied to someone besides Elijah. For example, Jesus Himself applied it to John the Baptist (see {{s||Matthew|11|13-15}}.) The Hebrew name, often transliterated "Isaiah," ''Yesha'yah[u]'' appears in the Hebrew bible on many occasions, but used to denote different "Isaiahs" than the prophet who authored the Book of Isaiah. These names are rendered ''Esaias'' in the Septuagint (LXX), and are rendered Jesiah and Jesaiah in the KJV and many other translations of the Old Testament. In D&C 84, Joseph Smith may have used a different transliteration of the Semitic name to differentiate one Isaiah from another. Indeed, we have many New Testament parallels in translation literature, such as the Jude/Judas variant for the same name in the New Testament. | *However, there are also cases when the name "Elias" is applied to someone besides Elijah. For example, Jesus Himself applied it to John the Baptist (see {{s||Matthew|11|13-15}}.) The Hebrew name, often transliterated "Isaiah," ''Yesha'yah[u]'' appears in the Hebrew bible on many occasions, but used to denote different "Isaiahs" than the prophet who authored the Book of Isaiah. These names are rendered ''Esaias'' in the Septuagint (LXX), and are rendered Jesiah and Jesaiah in the KJV and many other translations of the Old Testament. In D&C 84, Joseph Smith may have used a different transliteration of the Semitic name to differentiate one Isaiah from another. Indeed, we have many New Testament parallels in translation literature, such as the Jude/Judas variant for the same name in the New Testament. | ||
*Jesus' use of "Elias" to refer to another forerunner prophet (John the Baptist) illustrates the LDS concept of "Elias" as a calling or name-title for someone in a preparatory role.<ref>{{BD1|article=Elias|start=663}}{{link|url=http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/e/30 Direct jump}}</ref> And, the angel Gabriel applied the "spirit of Elias" to John even prior to his birth. (See {{s||Luke|1|15-17}}.) | *Jesus' use of "Elias" to refer to another forerunner prophet (John the Baptist) illustrates the LDS concept of "Elias" as a calling or name-title for someone in a preparatory role.<ref>{{BD1|article=Elias|start=663}}{{link|url=http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/e/30 Direct jump}}</ref> And, the angel Gabriel applied the "spirit of Elias" to John even prior to his birth. (See {{s||Luke|1|15-17}}.) | ||
Line 23: | Line 56: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
*If the critics wish to condemn Joseph Smith for using Elijah and Elias as separate people, they should first resolve similar issues elsewhere in the Bible and in Christian thought. | *If the critics wish to condemn Joseph Smith for using Elijah and Elias as separate people, they should first resolve similar issues elsewhere in the Bible and in Christian thought. | ||
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | *{{Detail_old|Elias and Elijah at the Kirtland Temple}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "30. If children have no sins until they are eight years old, why are they baptized at age eight to wash away non-existent sins?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' {{s||Moroni|8|8}} | + | |claim=30. If children have no sins until they are eight years old, why are they baptized at age eight to wash away non-existent sins? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' {{s||Moroni|8|8}} | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|Children are not baptized to "wash away sins." They are baptized to}} | ||
#fulfill the commandment given to all to be baptized—even Jesus was baptized, yet was without sin. | #fulfill the commandment given to all to be baptized—even Jesus was baptized, yet was without sin. | ||
#to enter into a covenant to serve Jesus and keep his commandments, so that when they do eventually commit sin, the power of the atonement will be operative in their lives. | #to enter into a covenant to serve Jesus and keep his commandments, so that when they do eventually commit sin, the power of the atonement will be operative in their lives. | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "31. How could the Garden of Eden have been in Missouri when the Pearl of Great Price declares that it was in the vicinity of Assyria and had the Euphrates and Hiddekel Rivers in it?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' P of GP Moses 3:14 and {{s|| | + | |claim=31. How could the Garden of Eden have been in Missouri when the Pearl of Great Price declares that it was in the vicinity of Assyria and had the Euphrates and Hiddekel Rivers in it? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' P of GP Moses 3:14 and {{s||D&C|116-117|}}; {{b||Genesis|2|8-15}} | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The named rivers represent four of the great rivers of the known world, yet the Biblical description does not match any modern known configuration. If the critics can understand why this does not bother ''them'', they can likely see how this presents no problem for Latter-day Saints.}} | ||
*It may be better to view these verses as a symbolic expression of Eden at "the center" of all that was known. | *It may be better to view these verses as a symbolic expression of Eden at "the center" of all that was known. | ||
*There is also a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. {{b||Ezekiel|28|13}} says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters—Jerusalem—it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters and which according to prophecy will be again some time in the future. | *There is also a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. {{b||Ezekiel|28|13}} says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters—Jerusalem—it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters and which according to prophecy will be again some time in the future. | ||
Line 47: | Line 84: | ||
*Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea. | *Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea. | ||
*Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.) | *Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.) | ||
− | *{{ | + | *{{Detail_old|Garden of Eden in Missouri?}} |
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Is it true that Mormons believe the original Garden of Eden was located in Missouri?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "32. Brigham Young said, 'The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy'. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269) Why did the Mormons yield to the pressure of the government and stop practicing polygamy?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | | | + | |claim=32. Brigham Young said, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy”. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269) Why did the Mormons yield to the pressure of the government and stop practicing polygamy? |
− | + | }} | |
+ | {{misinformation|This quotation is often used in anti-Mormon sources. Unsurprisingly, they do not include the surrounding text which explains what Brigham Young had in mind on this occasion (italics show text generally not cited by the critics):}} | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
''We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.'' | ''We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.'' | ||
Line 66: | Line 105: | ||
*But, in the context of this speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ("polygamists at least in your faith") and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures. | *But, in the context of this speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ("polygamists at least in your faith") and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures. | ||
*The Church did not give in to government pressure; members continued to practice plural marriage even in secret until commanded to cease by prophetic leaders. | *The Church did not give in to government pressure; members continued to practice plural marriage even in secret until commanded to cease by prophetic leaders. | ||
− | *{{ | + | *{{Detail_old|Brigham Young in JD 11%2C page 269|l1=Brigham Young in ''JD'' 11:269}} |
*'''Extensive further information:''' [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc39.pdf Lengthy paper on history of plural marriage ] | *'''Extensive further information:''' [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc39.pdf Lengthy paper on history of plural marriage ] | ||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Is plural marriage required in order to achieve exaltation?}} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Did Brigham Young believe that one could not enter the Celestial Kingdom unless they were a polygamist?}} | ||
+ | {{:Source:Doctrine and Covenants and Church History:Seminary Teacher Resource Manual:Doctrine and Covenants 132:We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "33. Heber C. Kimball stated, “We are the people of Deseret, she shall be no more Utah: we will have our own name”. Why did this prophecy fail?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Other reference:''' ''Journal of Discourses'' Vol. 5, page 161 | + | |claim=33. Heber C. Kimball stated, “We are the people of Deseret, she shall be no more Utah: we will have our own name”. Why did this prophecy fail? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Other reference:''' ''Journal of Discourses'' Vol. 5, page 161 | |
− | + | }} | |
+ | {{misinformation|This was not a prophecy. Heber C. Kimball was, at the time (1857), a counselor in the First Presidency. He was speaking about the attempts by the US Government to replace Brigham Young as governor of the Utah Territory. In fact, that is the main topic of his talk. In discussing this turn of political events, he was not functioning in a prophetic manner. His talk, as recorded in the ''Journal of Discourses,'' was called a "discourse." Several paragraphs before the referenced statement he said that he was "going to talk about these [political] things, and I feel as though I had a perfect right to do so, because I am one of the people."<ref>{{JDwiki|author=Heber C. Kimball|article=Correction, Etc.|date=30 August 1857|vol=5|pages=161}}</ref> A few paragraphs after the referenced statement he said that he was appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of the territory and that "this is a stump speech."<ref>{{JDwiki|author=Heber C. Kimball|article=Correction, Etc.|date=30 August 1857|vol=5|pages=162}}</ref>}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "34. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Other reference:''' ''Articles of Faith,'' by Talmage, page 262, 34th Ed. | + | |claim=34. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighted about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. Per cubic foot. The plates were 7” x 8” by about 6”.) |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | + | #'''Other reference:''' ''Articles of Faith,'' by Talmage, page 262, 34th Ed. | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The "gold plates" were not a solid block of gold, which would have indeed weighed over 200 lbs. The authors have not accounted for the space between the leaves, which themselves were not perfectly flat. Neither were the plates made of pure gold, which would have fallen apart due the the softness of the metal. The plates had to be an alloy which had, as described by witnesses, the "appearance of gold." Such an alloy was used by the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.}} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Of what material were the Book of Mormon "gold" plates constructed?}} | ||
+ | {{:Question: How much did the gold plates weigh?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "35. When Christ died, did darkness cover the land for three days or for three hours?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Luke|23|44}} and {{s|3|Nephi|8|19,23}} | + | |claim=35. When Christ died, did darkness cover the land for three days of [sic] for three hours? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Luke|23|44}} and {{s|3|Nephi|8|19,23}} | |
− | + | }} | |
+ | {{misinformation|Darkness covered the old world (Jerusalem) for three hours. The New World experienced three days of darkness. Given that these sites are thousands of miles apart, God is perfectly capable of giving them different amounts of light. It is entirely possible for a portion of the earth to be covered in darkness for days due to volcanic eruptions. The critics here struggle to find fault.}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: How is it possible that there were three days of darkness in the New World and not in the Old World?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "36. If the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, why have the Mormons changed it?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | | | + | |claim=36. If the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, why have the Mormons changed it? (There have been over 3,000 changes in the Book of Mormon, exclusive of punctuation changes) |
− | + | }} | |
+ | {{misinformation|Members of the Church do not believe in a "one and only true text" of any scripture. The vast majority of changes made to the Book of Mormon are issues of grammar, spelling, and typographical errors. The few other changes in wording were not made by "Mormons," but by Joseph Smith, the translator and prophet.}} | ||
*No change affects the meaning of the Book of Mormon text; Mormons can quite happily use the first edition of the Book of Mormon. In fact, the changes made in the 1981 edition brought the published text ''closer'' to the original manuscripts then available. | *No change affects the meaning of the Book of Mormon text; Mormons can quite happily use the first edition of the Book of Mormon. In fact, the changes made in the 1981 edition brought the published text ''closer'' to the original manuscripts then available. | ||
*Christians should be careful with such attacks. If they don’t want to have a double standard, they'd have to realize that there are more differences in Biblical manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament! Yet, Latter-day Saints and other Christians still believe the Bible. | *Christians should be careful with such attacks. If they don’t want to have a double standard, they'd have to realize that there are more differences in Biblical manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament! Yet, Latter-day Saints and other Christians still believe the Bible. | ||
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: What changes were made to the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "37. If God speaks through a prophet, why do Mormons vote on whether or not to receive and authorize it?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | | | + | |claim=37. If God speaks through a prophet, why do Mormons vote on whether or not to receive and authorize it? |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{misinformation|Members of the Church vote to ''sustain'' a revelation. By doing this, they recognize that the teaching comes from God, add their witness to its truth, and publicly put themselves under covenant to obey the commandment or teaching given. When Joshua taught the children of Israel, they too made a public commitment to obey:}} | |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey. ({{b||Joshua|24|24}}) | And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey. ({{b||Joshua|24|24}}) | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
− | + | Why do critics attack the Church for a practice that is clearly Biblical? | |
}} | }} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "38. It has been established that the 'Sensen' manuscript was simply a common Egyptian burial papyrus. Why do the Mormons still accept the Book of Abraham which was translated from that manuscript?"== |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves | |
− | | | + | |claim=38. It has been established that the “Sensen” manuscript was simply a common Egyptian burial papyrus. Why do the Mormons still accept the Book of Abraham which was translated from that manuscript? |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The Church has in its possession some papyri fragments from the scrolls used by Joseph Smith in the translation of the Book of Abraham. However, the critics do not tell their readers that the Church has only 13% of the scrolls. The critics also fail to mention that the Church announced that the fragments they had were from an Egyptian burial papyrus less than two months after reacquiring the papyri, and published these results in the Church's official magazine. No informed Latter-day Saint believes that the papyri in the Church's possession contain the text of the Book of Abraham (except Facsimile #1). The Church has never claimed otherwise. Members of the Church continue to accept the Book of Abraham as scripture because of the witness of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses that it is true.}} | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Was the Church forthright in identifying the rediscovered papyrus prior to their examination by non-LDS Egyptologists?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "39. Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of “Reformed Egyptian”, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | | | + | |claim=39. Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of “Reformed Egyptian”, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed? |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{misinformation|"Reformed Egyptian is not the name of any language known by modern scholars: Moroni makes it clear that "reformed Egyptian" is the name which ''the Nephites'' gave to a script originally based upon Egyptian characters, but modified over the course of a thousand years (see {{s||Mormon|9|32}}). It is no surprise that Egyptians or Jews have no script called "reformed Egyptian," as this was a Nephite term.}} | |
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: What is "reformed Egyptian"?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "40. Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to heaven?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Other reference:''' ''The Young Woman’s Journal,'' Vol 3, pages 263, 264 | + | |claim=40. Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to heaven? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Other reference:''' ''The Young Woman’s Journal,'' Vol 3, pages 263, 264 | |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{misinformation|There is no contemporary record of Joseph Smith making this statement—the first account dates more than 40 years after his death. In 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. Thus, some members and leaders were most likely repeating what had been told them by the science of the day. (Lots of Biblical prophets talked about the earth being [[Bible cosmology|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 the Mormons, but does not condemn Bible prophets.)}} | |
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Did Joseph Smith state that the moon was inhabited, and that it's inhabitants were dressed like Quakers?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "41. Why do Mormons not study Hebrew and Greek so that they can intelligently discuss the accuracy of the translation of the Bible?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | | | + | |claim=41. Why do Mormons not study Hebrew and Greek so that they can intelligently discuss the accuracy of the translation of the Bible? |
− | + | }} | |
− | *It is telling that the critics attack members of ''the Church'' for not studying ancient languages, yet within these questions there are several which show that ''they'' have misread the original texts upon which they base their criticisms. See questions #[[ | + | {{propaganda|If studying Hebrew and Greek is a requirement for intelligent discussion, then why don't most Christians study them? The fact is that some Christians do study them, and some Mormons study them; it is a personal choice, not a requirement. (See, for example, [http://saas.byu.edu/catalog/2008-2009ucat/departments/HCCL/GreekEmph.php here] and [http://asiane.byu.edu/heb.php here]). |
+ | *It is telling that the critics attack members of ''the Church'' for not studying ancient languages, yet within these questions there are several which show that ''they'' have misread the original texts upon which they base their criticisms. See questions #[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves#4. God said.2C .E2.80.9CIs there a God beside me.3F Yea.2C there is no God.3B I know not any.E2.80.9D. How can there be Gods who are Elohim.E2.80.99s ancestors.3F Surely an all-knowing God would know this and wouldn.E2.80.99t speak falsehoods.|4]], #[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves#5. How can any men ever become Gods when the Bible says.2C .E2.80.9CBefore me there was no god formed.2C neither shall there be after me.E2.80.9D.3F|5]], #[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves#8. If a spirit is a being without a body .28See Luke 24:39.29.2C why do Mormons teach that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones.3F|8]], #[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves#16. How can Mormons teach that the repentant thief was not saved when the Book of Mormon states that Paradise is where the righteous go.3F|16]], #[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves#43. According to Hebrews 7:24.2C the Melchizedek Priesthood is not transferable. Why do Mormons pass it from one to another.3F|43]], #[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves#46. If genealogies are important.2C why does the New Testament tell Christians to avoid them.3F|46]], #[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves#54. If baptism for the dead was a Christian ceremony.2C why did Paul use the pronoun .E2.80.9Cthey.E2.80.9D rather than .E2.80.9Cwe.E2.80.9D or .E2.80.9Cye.E2.80.9D.3F Why did he exclude himself and other Christians when referring to it.3F|54]], #[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves#55. Since the Bible says that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife.2C how can Mormons claim that polygamy is proper for New Testament Christians.3F|55]]. | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "42. Joseph Smith prepared fourteen Articles of Faith. Why has the original No. 11 been omitted?"== |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves | |
− | | | + | |claim=42. Joseph Smith prepared fourteen Articles of Faith. Why has the original No. 11 been omitted? |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|There were many versions of "articles of faith" prepared by various early Latter-day Saints to support their missionary efforts. Most of them had essential items in common (belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost; the necessity of faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost; etc.), but there were various differences among them. Even after the Wentworth Letter was published in March 1842, many other lists of LDS beliefs continued to appear for the next generation. In April 1849, James H. Flanigan included a list of fourteen statements in a pamphlet published in England, and this list was quoted and sometimes modified in various publications throughout the nineteenth century. Critics are trying to impose their [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrantist]] view of scripture on the Latter-day Saints. The saints chose to canonize one summary of their beliefs; they are not troubled by the existence of other similar summaries. Since the Church believes in on-going revelation, any needed additions or alterations to belief will be available as required.}} | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Is it true that there used to be fourteen Articles of Faith?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "43. According to Hebrews 7:24, the Melchizedek Priesthood is not transferable. Why do Mormons pass it from one to another?"== |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves | |
− | | | + | |claim=43. According to Hebrews 7:24, the Melchizedek Priesthood is not transferable. Why do Mormons pass it from one to another? |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The critics are here depending on old Bible scholarship. They are not up-to-date in their understanding of the Greek. The Greek text actually says that the Melchizedek priesthood is "unchangeable," rather than being "untransferrable." The critics' stance is not supported by the Biblical text. Rather, the priesthood is a permanent and necessary part of the Church—any Church claiming it is unnecessary does not meet the Biblical model.}} | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{Detail_old|Jesus is the only Melchizedek priesthood holder}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "44. If Mormonism came as a revelation from God, why are the Mormon Temple Oaths almost identical to the oaths of the Masonic Lodge?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | | | + | |claim=44. If Mormonism came as a revelation from God, why are the Mormon Temple Oaths almost identical to the oaths of the Masonic Lodge? |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{misinformation|They are not the same. The LDS temple patrons make commitments to live by the gospel of Jesus Christ. This includes commitments to obey the law of chastity, consecration of time and talents and other religious tenets. Masonry's oaths center around the promotion of brotherhood of the fraternity, going to the aid of fellow Masons and their widows and orphans in times of distress, and in holding inviolate the means of identifying a fellow Mason. So while the temple teaches man's relationship with God and Christ the Masonic Lodge teaches of man's relationship to his fellow men.}} | |
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Why would Joseph Smith incorporate Masonic elements into the temple ritual?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "45. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' {{s|| | + | |claim=45. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' {{s||D&C|124|56-60}} | |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | + | # | |
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|This was not a prophecy that the building would last forever.}} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Did Joseph Smith issue a prophecy that the Nauvoo House would stand forever and ever?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "46. If genealogies are important, why does the New Testament tell Christians to avoid them?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' {{b|1|Timothy|1|4}} and {{b||Titus|3|9 | + | |claim=46. If genealogies are important, why does the New Testament tell Christians to avoid them? |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' {{b|1|Timothy|1|4}} and {{b||Titus|3|9}} | |
− | |||
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The Bible does not forbid genealogies: It rejects the use of genealogies to "prove" one's righteousness, or the truth of one's teachings.}} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Does the Bible condemn genealogical research?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "47. The Bible says, 'The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin'. Why did Brigham Young say that there are some sins which can be atoned for only by the shedding of ones own blood?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | | | + | |claim=47. The Bible says, “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin”. Why did Brigham Young say that there are some sins which can be atoned for only by the shedding of ones own blood? |
− | + | }} | |
+ | {{misinformation|The Bible also has Jesus teach that there are some acts which ''cannot'' be forgiven (notwithstanding the blood of Christ). Jesus said:}} | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.<br> | 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.<br> | ||
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. ({{b||Matthew|12|31-32}}, see also {{b||Luke|12|10}}) | 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. ({{b||Matthew|12|31-32}}, see also {{b||Luke|12|10}}) | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
− | *Latter-day Saints understand "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" to be a willing, fully-aware renouncement of Christ and His atoning sacrifice. It is to sin against actual knowledge. Clearly, if one rejects the atonement of Christ, it cannot save him. He must then suffer for his own sins, since he has cut himself off from the only thing that might have saved | + | *Latter-day Saints understand "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" to be a willing, fully-aware renouncement of Christ and His atoning sacrifice. It is to sin against actual knowledge. Clearly, if one rejects the atonement of Christ, it cannot save him. He must then suffer for his own sins, since he has cut himself off from the only thing that might have saved him—the atonement. |
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: What is "blood atonement"?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "48. God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made. Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Genesis|3|21}} | + | |claim=48. God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made. Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Genesis|3|21}} | |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{misinformation|The question has reference to LDS temple ceremonies. Members of FAIR, like all active Latter-day Saints, hold their temple covenants sacred, and will not discuss such matters in a public forum, especially before hostile critics. We can say, however, that members of the Church do not ''memorialize'' the Fall in the temple, or elsewhere. Latter-day Saints are aware, of course, of the Fall, since they must live in a fallen world, and contend with the fallen natures of themselves and others. The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ and its ordinances—especially the temple—is to allow members to ''overcome'' the fallen world and fallen man, not praise it.}} | |
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: If God rejected the fig leaf aprons worn by Adam and Eve, why do Mormons wear aprons representing this in the temple?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "49. Why do Mormons insist that Ezekiel 37:15-22 is about two books instead of about two kingdoms as god Himself explained in verse 22?"== |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves | |
− | | | + | |claim=49. Why do Mormons insist that Ezekiel 37:15-22 is about two books instead of about two kingdoms as god Himself explained in verse 22? |
− | |||
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The two symbols are not exclusive. The sticks can be nations, ''and'' each nation has a witness of Christ which helps in restoring scattered Israel. The use of the Ezekiel passage is a modern one for Latter-day Saints. It does not mean that this is the only interpretation, or the use to which Ezekiel intended it to be put.}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | For more information, see [[The Book of Mormon as the Stick of Ephraim]]. | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "50. If Acts 3:20, 21 is a prophecy about the restoration of Mormonism, why didn’t Jesus return in 1830?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | | | + | |claim=50. If Acts 3:20, 21 is a prophecy about the restoration of Mormonism, why didn’t Jesus return in 1830? |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{misinformation|{{b||Acts|3|20-21}} is about the need to follow Christ until the restoration of all things and return of Christ to the earth. The Church does not believe that it has yet received "all things"—the ninth article of faith says that "we believe...[God] will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." ({{s||A+of+F|1|9}} If there is more to be revealed, then all things ''cannot'' have been restored yet. The final revelation of all things will not come until Christ returns to reign in glory upon the earth.}} | |
}} | }} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "51. Revelation 14:6,7 is part of the body of prophecy about the future Great Tribulation. How could that passage have been fulfilled by Moroni in 1830?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | | | + | |claim=51. Revelation 14:6,7 is part of the body of prophecy about the future Great Tribulation. How could that passage have been fulfilled by Moroni in 1830? |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{misinformation|Revelation uses ''apocalyptic'' symbolism. Attempting to read it literally and chronologically is rife with difficulties. The critics' assertions about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_tribulation the Great Tribulation] presumes that their view is the only way to read these scriptures. However, the critics' view here seems to draw on the perspective of John Nelson Darby, whose ideas were popularized only in 1909. The LDS view sees Moroni's role in restoring the gospel of Christ to the earth as preparation for the faithful, that those who truly seek Christ will have the fulness of the gospel and its ordinances to enable them to withstand and prosper amidst the tribulations of the last days prior to the coming of Christ to reign in glory. The critics are here again attacking the Mormons for not accepting the ''critics'' relatively novel and idiosyncratic reading of Revelation.}} | |
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "52. In light of Ezekiel 28:13-15 and Hebrews 1:5, how can Satan and Jesus be brothers (as the Mormons teach)?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | | | + | |claim=52. In light of Ezekiel 28:13-15 and Hebrews 1:5, how can Satan and Jesus be brothers (as the Mormons teach)? (note: Satan was created) |
− | + | }} | |
+ | {{propaganda|This is another question intended more to sensationalize beliefs and polarize rather than lead to meaningful communication. Presumably, something akin to guilt by association is intended. The short answer a similarly rhetorical statement—the critic, Judas, and Hitler are brothers too! But the reality of that relationship obviously need not taint the good standing of the critic. All sons of Adam (including all subsequent generations) are brothers. | ||
*Latter-day Saints do indeed believe that in a meaningful sense Jesus, angels (including the fallen angel Lucifer), and Adam and all his sons are sons of God—and hence, brothers. The Bible corroborates our respective sonships. No Christian should disagree with that. Perhaps the criticism stems from the fact that Latter-day Saints happen to believe that all the sons of God existed together pre-existently? However, this belief need not change the general equation for brotherhood upon which all Christians agree. Suffice it to say that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus Christ had a unique status as God in the pre-existence—a status other sons of God did not have! Jesus Christ's earliest introduction in Scripture uniquely embraced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes that clear—''... one among them that was like unto God''—[http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/24#28 Abraham 3:24–28]). None other had Christ's status. And that unique status Jesus Christ had in the pre-existence means Lucifer's brotherhood and our brotherhood with Him there were exactly the same as our common brotherhood with Him is based on His dwelling on the Earth. Brothers yes. Different yes. | *Latter-day Saints do indeed believe that in a meaningful sense Jesus, angels (including the fallen angel Lucifer), and Adam and all his sons are sons of God—and hence, brothers. The Bible corroborates our respective sonships. No Christian should disagree with that. Perhaps the criticism stems from the fact that Latter-day Saints happen to believe that all the sons of God existed together pre-existently? However, this belief need not change the general equation for brotherhood upon which all Christians agree. Suffice it to say that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus Christ had a unique status as God in the pre-existence—a status other sons of God did not have! Jesus Christ's earliest introduction in Scripture uniquely embraced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes that clear—''... one among them that was like unto God''—[http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/24#28 Abraham 3:24–28]). None other had Christ's status. And that unique status Jesus Christ had in the pre-existence means Lucifer's brotherhood and our brotherhood with Him there were exactly the same as our common brotherhood with Him is based on His dwelling on the Earth. Brothers yes. Different yes. | ||
− | |||
*Also, note a caution on uses of the word on "all" in scripture from Evangelical leader, Charles Spurgeon: | *Also, note a caution on uses of the word on "all" in scripture from Evangelical leader, Charles Spurgeon: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
− | "The whole world is gone after Him." Did all the world go after Christ? "Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children," and "the whole world lieth in the wicked one." Does "the whole world" there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were "of God?" The words "world" and "all" are used in seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that "all" means all persons , taken individually. | + | "The whole world is gone after Him." Did all the world go after Christ? "Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children," and "the whole world lieth in the wicked one." Does "the whole world" there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were "of God?" The words "world" and "all" are used in seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that "all" means all persons , taken individually.<ref>Charles Spurgeon, ''Particular Redemption'' (28 February 1858).</ref> |
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
*In other words, if the Bible is to be deemed to be ''always'' plain/perspicacious, if such a philosophically absolute interpretation of the word "all" were intended by John or Paul, they would certainly have provided the necessary academic/philosophical clarification, in the immediate context, and the Bible would be much more of a systematic theology and less of a compilation of religious history and moral teaching, and simple witness of God's existence and love. | *In other words, if the Bible is to be deemed to be ''always'' plain/perspicacious, if such a philosophically absolute interpretation of the word "all" were intended by John or Paul, they would certainly have provided the necessary academic/philosophical clarification, in the immediate context, and the Bible would be much more of a systematic theology and less of a compilation of religious history and moral teaching, and simple witness of God's existence and love. | ||
Line 279: | Line 326: | ||
*In other words, while the question suggests that Satan is a creation, fundamental Christian belief is that Jesus is also a creation. The question avoids this issue (by neglecting to mention this aspect of Christian theology), but it ought to be addressed as well, to make it clear exactly what is meant here. | *In other words, while the question suggests that Satan is a creation, fundamental Christian belief is that Jesus is also a creation. The question avoids this issue (by neglecting to mention this aspect of Christian theology), but it ought to be addressed as well, to make it clear exactly what is meant here. | ||
}} | }} | ||
+ | [[Jesus Christ/Brother of Satan]] | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "53. If no person ever receives the Holy Spirit before baptism or without the laying on of hands, how does a Mormon explain the case of Cornelius?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Acts|10|44-47}} | + | |claim=53. If no person ever receives the Holy Spirit before baptism or without the laying on of hands, how does a Mormon explain the case of Cornelius? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Acts|10|44-47}} | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|Latter-day Saints are happy to grant that people may receive a witness from the Holy Ghost prior to baptism. In fact, Mormon missionaries ''depend'' on it, since only through a witness of the Spirit can someone be convinced of the truth. Joseph Smith said:}} | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
− | There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.{{ | + | There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.<ref>{{TPJS1|start=199}}</ref> |
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
− | + | The Bible, however, is clear that the gift of the Holy Ghost comes by the laying on of hands by those in authority (e.g., {{b||Acts|19|1-6}}). | |
}} | }} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "54. If baptism for the dead was a Christian ceremony, why did Paul use the pronoun “they” rather than “we” or “ye”? Why did he exclude himself and other Christians when referring to it?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' {{b|1|Corinthians|15|29}} | + | |claim=54. If baptism for the dead was a Christian ceremony, why did Paul use the pronoun “they” rather than “we” or “ye”? Why did he exclude himself and other Christians when referring to it? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' {{b|1|Corinthians|15|29}} | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|John A. Tvedtnes noted:}} | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul cited the early Christian practice of proxy baptism for the dead as evidence of a future resurrection and judgment. Most non-Latter-day Saint scholars have failed to note the importance of this passage. Some pass it off as an outmoded practice of the early church, while others believe it refers to an apostate or heretical doctrine. | In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul cited the early Christian practice of proxy baptism for the dead as evidence of a future resurrection and judgment. Most non-Latter-day Saint scholars have failed to note the importance of this passage. Some pass it off as an outmoded practice of the early church, while others believe it refers to an apostate or heretical doctrine. | ||
Line 303: | Line 355: | ||
But historical records are clear on the matter. Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice. Of the Marcionites of the fourth century, Epiphanius wrote: | But historical records are clear on the matter. Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice. Of the Marcionites of the fourth century, Epiphanius wrote: | ||
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
− | “In this country—I mean Asia—and even in Galatia, their school flourished eminently and a traditional fact concerning them has reached us, that when any of them had died without baptism, they used to baptize others in their name, lest in the resurrection they should suffer punishment as unbaptized.” (''Heresies'', 8:7.){{ | + | “In this country—I mean Asia—and even in Galatia, their school flourished eminently and a traditional fact concerning them has reached us, that when any of them had died without baptism, they used to baptize others in their name, lest in the resurrection they should suffer punishment as unbaptized.” (''Heresies'', 8:7.)<ref>{{Ensign1|author=John A. Tvedtnes|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/02/insights/proxy-baptism?lang=eng Proxy Baptism]|date=February 1977|start=86}}</ref> |
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
− | + | Paul is criticizing those who practice baptism for the dead, and yet deny the resurrection, pointing out that this is inconsistent—why baptize for those who will not be saved and resurrected? Thus, Paul does not include himself and some others because ''he'' is not guilty of this theological inconsistency. | |
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Does the practice of baptism for the dead have ancient roots?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "55. Since the Bible says that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife, how can Mormons claim that polygamy is proper for New Testament Christians?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' {{b|1|Timothy|3|2 | + | |claim=55. Since the Bible says that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife, how can Mormons claim that polygamy is proper for New Testament Christians? |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' {{b|1|Timothy|3|2}} | |
− | |||
− | |||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The critics have again misread the scripture. These same "New Testament Christians" didn't see anything about plural marriage that was absolutely forbidden. This is agreed on by such writers as [[Early Christians on plural marriage|Tertullian]], [[Early Christians on plural marriage|Justin Martyr]], and even [[Early Christians on plural marriage|Augustine]].}} | ||
+ | *The scriptural text is not as clear-cut as the critics would wish. The Greek can mean a variety of things, as the early Christian authors cited above seem to have recognized. It can "be read as excluding (a) the single, (b) the polygamous, (c) the divorced, [or] (d) those remarried after being widowed. The words can also convey the connotation 'devoted solely to his wife.'"<ref>{{Book:Barney:Footnotes to NT for LDS 2|pages=240a}}</ref> | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Does the Bible forbid plural marriage?}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "56. Why does the Mormon church teach that the broad way leads to the Terrestrial Heaven when Jesus taught that it leads to destruction?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Matthew|7|13,14}} | + | |claim=56. Why does the Mormon church teach that the broad way leads to the Terrestrial Heaven when Jesus taught that it leads to destruction? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Matthew|7|13,14}} | |
− | + | }} | |
+ | {{disinformation|The Church does not teach that "the broad way leads to the Terrestrial Heaven." We would need more details to address this claim. Given the track record of the critics who developed this list, this question is probably based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of LDS doctrine. | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "57. Are you sincere enough about your personal salvation that you will carefully study the following Bible references to discover the Bible’s way to salvation?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' {{b||John|10|9}}; {{b||1Corinthians|1|18}}; {{b||Ephesians|2|8-10}}; {{b||Colossians|1|12-14}}; {{b||Romans|4|8}}; {{b|1|Peter|2|24}}; {{b||Acts|16|31}}; {{b||John|1|12}}; {{b|1|John|5|12,13}}; {{b||Romans|5|1}} and {{b||Romans|8|1}} | + | |claim=57. Are you sincere enough about your personal salvation that you will carefully study the following Bible references to discover the Bible’s way to salvation? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' {{b||John|10|9}}; {{b||1Corinthians|1|18}}; {{b||Ephesians|2|8-10}}; {{b||Colossians|1|12-14}}; {{b||Romans|4|8}}; {{b|1|Peter|2|24}}; {{b||Acts|16|31}}; {{b||John|1|12}}; {{b|1|John|5|12,13}}; {{b||Romans|5|1}} and {{b||Romans|8|1}} | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{information|Mormons have no problem reading any of these verses and thousands more. Mormons understand that it is Jesus who provides the "way to salvation," not the Bible. The Bible is a record of God's dealings with man and a record of Jesus' ministry on earth. It records some of the words of the prophets, but the "Bible's way to salvation," as translated by well-meaning men, will not get us back to God's presence—only the grace of God, through His Son Jesus Christ, can do that. | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: "58. Are you courageous enough to personally receive the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart and follow the truth regardless of ridicule, antagonism or persecution?"== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
− | |authorsources='''Scripture reference:''' {{b||John|1|12}}, {{b||Colossians|1|27}}, and {{b||Revelation|3|20}} | + | |claim=58. Are you courageous enough to personally receive the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart and follow the truth regardless of ridicule, antagonism or persecution? |
− | | | + | |authorsources=<br> |
− | + | #'''Scripture reference:''' {{b||John|1|12}}, {{b||Colossians|1|27}}, and {{b||Revelation|3|20}} | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{information|Yes, Mormons are, and have received Jesus Christ, despite persecution and ridicule—even in the face of a leading and deceptive series of questions designed to not build up the Kingdom of God as Jesus commanded, but to sow seeds of doubt and confusion as Jesus' critics often exemplified. | ||
*Why do critics assume Mormons lack courage, or are acting in bad faith? | *Why do critics assume Mormons lack courage, or are acting in bad faith? | ||
*Why do some Christians claim to know that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have not received Jesus Christ? Who made them our judges? | *Why do some Christians claim to know that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have not received Jesus Christ? Who made them our judges? | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | + | ||
'''[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves|Click here for Part I (Q. 1-28)]]''' | '''[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves|Click here for Part I (Q. 1-28)]]''' | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | {{ | + | {{endnotes sources}} |
Jump to Subtopic:
Responses to Questions 1-28 | A FAIR Analysis of: Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves (Questions 1-28), a work by author: Contender Ministries
|
Claim Evaluation |
Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
![]() |
29. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, why did he fail to realize that “Elias” is the N.T. form of the name “Elijah”? (D & C 110:12,13 and 1 Kings 17:1 and James 5:17) How could Elijah (Elias) have appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple as two different people?
The Jews gave up their business and attended to him. He obtained one Nathan in Jerusalem to pass for his Elias, or forerunner.[2]
}}
30. If children have no sins until they are eight years old, why are they baptized at age eight to wash away non-existent sins?Author's sources:
- Scripture reference: Moroni 8꞉8
}}
31. How could the Garden of Eden have been in Missouri when the Pearl of Great Price declares that it was in the vicinity of Assyria and had the Euphrates and Hiddekel Rivers in it?Author's sources:
- Scripture reference: P of GP Moses 3:14 and D&C 116-117; Genesis 2:8-15
}}
Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.
Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.)
This idea perhaps strikes most non-members as odd, but not simply because the Saints have an opinion about the Garden's location—as we have seen, religions of all stripes have had a wide variety of views on the subject. What likely strikes outside American observers as strange is the idea that the Garden is local—the LDS view does not place the Garden in a never-never land, buried in distant time and far-away space. Rather, the LDS Garden is local and somewhat immediate.
Upon reflection, though, the thoughtful observer will realize that this is simply one more manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' uniqueness: rather than believing only in dead prophets, from long ago, in distant lands, in old records, the Church also embraces modern revelation, living prophets, and an on-going divine involvement with God's people. The gospel restored by Joseph Smith does not merely sacralize the past, but the present and future as well—and, it sacralizes both lofty matters and more earthly concerns like farms, hills, and geography.
It is this intrusion of the sacred into the mundane that surprises most observers—the issue of the Garden is merely one more example of a broader phenomenon.
As the official Church website points out, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ... Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. ... A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."[3]
It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradisiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden.
32. Brigham Young said, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy”. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269) Why did the Mormons yield to the pressure of the government and stop practicing polygamy?
We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.
}}
Critics of the Church point to a statement made by Brigham Young to make the claim that Latter-day Saints believe that one must practice plural marriage in order to achieve exaltation (i.e. become like God not just be saved).[4]
The relevant text is as follows:
The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269.)
This quotation is often used in anti-Mormon sources. They do not include the surrounding text which explains what Brigham Young had in mind on this occasion:
We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.[5]
It is clear from the quote that Brigham was making several points which the critics ignore:
Finally, it must be remembered that Brigham Young is speaking to a group who had been commanded to live the law of polygamy. There is no basis for speculating about what he would have said to a group who did not have that commandment given to them, as present-day members do not.
Jump to details:
"Doctrine and Covenants 132," Seminary Teacher Resource Manual on LDS.org:
Note: Avoid sensationalism and speculation when talking about plural marriage. Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.[6]
33. Heber C. Kimball stated, “We are the people of Deseret, she shall be no more Utah: we will have our own name”. Why did this prophecy fail?Author's sources:
- Other reference: Journal of Discourses Vol. 5, page 161
}}
34. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighted about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. Per cubic foot. The plates were 7” x 8” by about 6”.)Author's sources:
- Other reference: Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th Ed.
The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies states:
Were the Book of Mormon plates pure gold, or were they made from an alloy that looked like gold? The most serious investigation of this question was done 45 years ago by Read H. Putnam of Evanston, Wyoming, a blacksmith and metallurgist. [1] Working first from the general dimensions of the set of plates as reported by eyewitnesses, he calculated that a block of pure gold of that size would have weighed a little over 200 pounds. A number of witnesses, however, put the weight of the set at about 60 pounds. The discrepancy can be partly accounted for by the fact that the leaves must have been handcrafted, presumably by hammering, and irregularities in flatness would have left air space between the plates. This led Putnam to surmise that the entire set of plates would have weighed probably less than 50 percent of the weight of a solid block of the metal.
Because the weight of a metal depends on its purity, we must also consider whether the plates were of pure gold. The Nephites were aware of purity distinctions and alloys. We know, for example, that the "brass" plates were of an alloy (quite surely bronze, a copper-tin mixture) [2] and that the plates of Ether were specifically distinguished as being of "pure" gold (Mosiah 8:9). Furthermore, Nephi taught his associates "to work in all manner of" metals and "precious ores" (2 Nephi 5:15). Yet nowhere does the text say that the Nephites' plates were of pure gold.
Joseph Smith's brother William specifically said that the material of the plates was "a mixture of gold and copper." [3] (Someone must have provided an objective basis for that statement, for the natural assumption would have been that the plates were pure gold.) The cautious statements by other witnesses, including Joseph Smith himself, who spoke of the plates as having "the appearance of gold," suggest that the metal may have been an alloy. [4]
Putnam observed that the only two colored metals from antiquity were gold and copper. An alloy of those two elements was called "tumbaga" by the Spaniards and was in common use in ancient tropical America for manufacturing precious objects. Putnam put forward the reasonable hypothesis that metal plates made in Mormon's day were of that material (the earliest Mesoamerican archaeological specimen of tumbaga—made from a hammered metal sheet—dates to the same century, the fifth century AD, when Moroni hid up the plates he had in his possession).[5] If Mormon's Book of Mormon plates were made of tumbaga, their weight would have been much less than had they been made of pure gold.[9] Putnam made that point in mathematical detail and concluded that the total weight of the plates in Joseph Smith's charge would have been near the 60-pound figure reported by several witnesses.
It is of interest that tumbaga was commonly gilded by applying citric acid to the surface. The resulting chemical reaction eliminated copper atoms from the outer .0006 inch of the surface, leaving a microscopic layer of 23-carat gold that made the object look like it was wholly gold. [6] Plates having "the appearance of gold," then, are exactly what we would expect if they were made of tumbaga.[7] [Footnote markers have been left in; references are available on the original site, see footnote.][10]
Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were consistent in their witness that the plates weighed 40-60 pounds.
Some critics assume that the "golden plates" are pure gold, or that they are a solid block of gold. Neither conclusion is warranted.
35. When Christ died, did darkness cover the land for three days of [sic] for three hours?Author's sources:
- Scripture reference: Luke 23:44 and 3 Nephi 8꞉19,23
}}
Some argue that the "three days" of "darkness upon the face of the land" in the New World following Christ's death is implausible. There are also a number of references to the destruction in the New World that accompanied Christ's death to "the whole Earth." However, When the Book of Mormon says “the whole Earth” it does not actually mean the entire planet, but rather every place within the local people’s experience.
Note that in the gospel of Luke is says that Caesar taxed "all the world" (Luke 2꞉1). But he clearly could not have taxed anyone outside the Roman Empire, which, large as it was, was not "all the world." It certainly did not include India or China, or much of anywhere else east of Judea, nor most Arabia to the south and the vast majority of the African continent--let alone the Americas, obviously, which they did not even know. Likewise, when Jesus commanded the apostles to preach the gospel throughout "all the world" (Mark 16:15) there no evidence they went beyond the Roman Empire either.
The phrases "all the world" and "the whole earth" in the scriptures and other ancient sources generally lack the global perspective we have today, and are in fact hyperbolic, referring to a more limited region
The Book of Mormon 3 Nephi 8꞉5-25 provides a detailed description consistent with a massive volcanic and seismic eruption. Such details are precise for both ancient and modern accounts, though they would have been unknown to Joseph Smith.
Remarkably, one of the models most favored by LDS scholars (Sorenson's Mesoamerican model) has candidate eruptions which are largely restricted to the proper time period.
The three days of darkness is consistent with a period of intense volcanism. This explanation of the darkness has been particularly popular among those who advocate a limited geographical model of the Book of Mormon. Most LGT models place Book of Mormon lands in central America; this area is well-known for active seismic activity.
One author suggested:
The inability to ignite the exceedingly dry wood is interesting in view of the fact that a few people are also described as dying from suffocation during the period of destruction which preceded the period of darkness (3 Nephi 10꞉13). This suggests that in some regions the concentration of dense volcanic gases (carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide) at ground level was sufficient to prevent igniting of the kindling and to cause suffocation. The uncle of Pliny died of suffocation as a consequence of a volcanic eruption.
James Baer notes that volcanic eruptions could have accompanied the violent earthquake described in 3 Nephi. He notes that these would have made the atmosphere dark with dust and cinders and would have released carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and sulfurous gases, which would have been suffocating and could have made fire kindling impossible.
Another mechanism, however, seems an equally likely explanation of the inability to ignite the dry tinder. If one assumes that sparks from flint were the common method of starting fires, then the heavy ash fall could have been effective in preventing ignition. This heavy ash fall also offers a likely explanation for the terms mist of darkness and vapor of darkness used in 1 Nephi 12꞉4–5.[21]
Given the wide variety of geographic models proposed for the Book of Mormon, there is obviously not evidence of volcanism in all areas, especially at the proper (i.e., at around AD 30, at Christ's death). (If the volcanic hypothesis for the three days' darkness is true, this provides one data point which can exclude many models, including a hemispheric or exclusively North American model.)
However, Sorenson's Mesoamerican model has been noted to have some interesting features in this regard: volcanoes do exist in the proper area, and these volcanoes have been shown by modern dating to have erupted only during two periods during the past 8600 years (3% of the time):
Thus, Sorenson's model could have been easily disproven by these data, but was not.[22]
Furthermore, ice core data is consistent with a major volcanic event at the time of Christ's death, within the margin of error provided by the dating measurements, though it is not at present possible to determine the location of these eruptions.[23]
36. If the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, why have the Mormons changed it? (There have been over 3,000 changes in the Book of Mormon, exclusive of punctuation changes)
}}
The earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God." Joseph Smith later changed some, but not all, of these to "the Son of God." It is claimed by some that this is evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity, claiming that Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine. However, this change was a deliberate editorial insertion by Joseph Smith to clarify four verses in 1 Nephi.
The second edition of the Book of Mormon was published in 1837 at Kirtland, Ohio. The typesetting and printing were done during the winter of 1836–37, with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taking an active part in the editing process.
In this edition numerous corrections were made to the text of the 1830 (first) edition to bring it back to the reading in the original and printer's manuscripts. Joseph Smith also made a number of editorial changes to the text, as was his right as the translator of the text.
Among the changes he made are these four in 1 Nephi 11 and 13:
Original manuscript | Printer's manuscript | 1830 edition | 1837 edition | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 Nephi 11:18 | behold the virgin which thou seest is the Mother of god after the manner of the flesh | behold the virgin |
Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh. | Behold, the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. |
1 Nephi 11:21 | & the angel said unto me behold the lam of god yea even the eternal father knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw | & the Angel said unto me behold the Lamb of God yea even the <God> Father knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw | And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? | And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? |
1 Nephi 11:32 | & it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again saying look and i lookt & beheld the lam of god that he was taken By the People yea the ever lasting god was judgd of the world and i saw & bare record | & it came to pass that the Angel spake unto me again saying look & I looked & behold the Lamb of God that he was taken by the People yea the everlasting God was Judged of the world & I saw & bear record | And it came to pass the angel spake unto me again, saying, look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record. | And it came to pass the angel spake unto me again, saying, look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record. |
1 Nephi 13:40 | (Not extant.) | & the Angel spake unto me saying these last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles shall establish the truth of the first |
And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which is of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain the precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved; | And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain the precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved; |
(The strikeouts and <insertions> in the printer's manuscript are in Joseph's hand, and were added by him during the preparation of the 1837 edition.)
37. If God speaks through a prophet, why do Mormons vote on whether or not to receive and authorize it?
And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey. (Joshua 24:24)
Why do critics attack the Church for a practice that is clearly Biblical? }}
38. It has been established that the “Sensen” manuscript was simply a common Egyptian burial papyrus. Why do the Mormons still accept the Book of Abraham which was translated from that manuscript?
}}
The Church announced that the fragments contained a funerary text in the January 1968 Improvement Era (the predecessor to today's Ensign magazine). Of the 11 fragments, one fragment has Facsimile 1, and the other 10 fragments are funerary texts, which the Church claimed from the moment the papyri were rediscovered. There is no evidence that the Church has ever claimed that any of the 10 remaining fragments contain text which is contained in the Book of Abraham.
The critics are telling us nothing new when they dramatically "announce" that the JSP contain Egyptian funerary documents. The Church disseminated this information as widely as possible from the very beginning.
A review of the time-line of the papyri demonstrates that the Church quickly publicized the nature of the JSP in the official magazine of the time, The Improvement Era.
There were 11 fragments discovered and given to the church. The Church was very quick in releasing this information to the membership and the world.
39. Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of “Reformed Egyptian”, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed?
}}
Moroni makes it clear that "reformed Egyptian" is the name which the Nephites have given to a script based upon Egyptian characters, and modified over the course of a thousand years (See Mormon 9:32). So, it is no surprise that Egyptians or Jews have no script called "reformed Egyptian," as this was a Nephite term.
There are, however, several variant Egyptian scripts which are "reformed" or altered from their earlier form. Hugh Nibley and others have pointed out that the change from Egyptian hieroglyphics, to hieratic, to demotic is a good description of Egyptian being "reformed." By 600 BC, hieratic was used primarily for religious texts, while demotic was used for daily use.off-site
One can see how hieroglyphics developed into the more stylized hieratic, and this process continued with the demotic:
What could be a better term for this than an Egyptian script that has been "reformed"?
More recent research provides further corroboration:
The fourth presentation at BYU’s Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies conference on 31 August 2012 was on “Writing in 7th Century BC Levant,” by Stefan Wimmer of the University of Munich. It was entitled “Palestinian Hieratic.” He examined an interesting phenomena in Hebrew inscriptions, the use of Egyptian hieratic (cursive hieroglyphic) signs.
Basically Hebrew scribes used Egyptian signs for various numerals, weights and measures. The changes in the form of these signs parallel similar chronological changes in the form of Egyptian hieratic characters, which indicates continued contact of some sort between Egyptian and Hebrew scribes, probably over several centuries. (If there had been a single scribal transmission with no ongoing contact, the changes in the Hebrew forms of hieratic signs would not parallel contemporary changes in Egyptian hieratic forms.) No other Semitic language used Egyptian hieratic signs except Hebrew (with one possible Moabite example.)
There are a couple of hundred examples of such texts, the majority dating from the late seventh century, and geographically mainly from Jerusalem southward. The phenomena ends after the Babylonian captivity. (In other words, Palestinian hieratic is most common in precisely the time and location of Lehi and Nephi, and only exists in Hebrew.)[26]
Additionally,
Documents from the kingdoms of both Israel and Judah, but not the neighboring kingdoms, of the eighth and seventh centuries contain Egyptian hieratic signs (cursive hieroglyphics) and numerals that had ceased to be used in Egypt after the tenth century (Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 311.)
German Egyptologist Stefan Wimmer calls this script "palestinian Hieratic." See Stefan Wimmer, Palästinisches Hieratisch: Die Zahl- und Sonderzeichen in der althebräischen Schrift, Ägypten und Altes Testament 75 (Germany: Harrassowitz Wiesbaden, 2008).
William Hamblin provides additional example of such reformation of Egyptian, including:
Given that Moroni says the Nephites then modified the scripts further, "reformed Egyptian" is an elegant description of both the Old World phenomenon, and what Moroni says happened among the Nephites.
40. Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to heaven?Author's sources:
- Other reference: The Young Woman’s Journal, Vol 3, pages 263, 264
}}
41. Why do Mormons not study Hebrew and Greek so that they can intelligently discuss the accuracy of the translation of the Bible?
42. Joseph Smith prepared fourteen Articles of Faith. Why has the original No. 11 been omitted?
}}
The present-day Articles of Faith were not the first effort of members and missionaries from the Church to summarize their core beliefs. There are several different lists, written by different authors.
The Articles of Faith used today in the Church are from Joseph Smith's "Wentworth Letter," but this does not mean that the other summaries were not useful reflections of what early members believed was important for others to understand about their faith.
The following is an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
The Wentworth Letter was not the first attempt to summarize basic LDS beliefs. Earlier lists, some of which may have influenced the Wentworth listing, had appeared prior to 1842. As early as June 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were committing to paper the "Articles and Covenants" of the soon-to-be-organized Church. Later known as Doctrine and Covenants Section 20, this text enumerates a number of basic beliefs, including the existence of God; the creation and fall of man; the centrality of Jesus Christ; the fundamental ordinances of the gospel, including baptism; and the basic duties of members (20:17–36). This document, the first accepted by a Church conference vote, was not an exhaustive listing of all beliefs but rather a basic charter for the infant organization, rooted in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
In the first issue of the LDS Messenger and Advocate (Oct. 1834), published in Kirtland, Ohio, Oliver Cowdery enumerated eight "principles," all of which had their parallel in section 20.
Other early lists that summarized the leading principles of Latter-day Saint beliefs prior to the Wentworth Letter include one prepared by Joseph Young for publication by John Hayward in The Religious Creeds and Statistics of Every Christian Denomination in the United States (Boston, 1836, pp. 139–40). In five paragraphs, he outlined the doctrines of (1) the Godhead and Atonement of Jesus Christ; (2) the first principles and ordinances of the gospel performed by apostolic authority as in the ancient Church of Christ; (3) the gathering of lost Israel and the restoration of spiritual gifts to her; (4) the Second Coming of Christ; and (5) the resurrection and judgment of all mankind.
Another list of eighteen "principles and doctrines" was included by Parley P. Pratt in the introduction to his Late Persecution of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (New York, 1840, pp. iii–xiii). For example, "The first principle of Theology as held by this Church, is Faith in God the eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ, who verily was crucified for the sins of the world…and in the Holy Ghost who bears record of them" (pp. iii–iv). Many phrases in Pratt's list are similar to those in the Wentworth Letter.
Orson Pratt offers an expansive and eloquent "sketch of the faith and doctrine" of the Church in his Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions (Edinburgh, 1840, pp. 24–31). The order in which it presents its themes in nineteen paragraphs (many of which begin, "We believe that…") is nearly identical to that of the thirteen points of the Wentworth Letter. Orson Pratt's explanations include biblical references and personal testimony of the truth and divine origins of these teachings.
Orson Hyde published in German a History of the Church that included a chapter of sixteen articles (actually essays) on such topics as the Godhead, the use of scripture, faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, Sacrament of bread and wine, confession of sins and Church discipline, children, revelations, lay priesthood, baptism for the dead, prayer, holidays, washing of the feet, and patriarchal blessings (A Cry from the Wilderness [Frankfurt, 1842]).
Even after the Wentworth Letter was published in March 1842, many other lists of LDS beliefs continued to appear for the next generation. In April 1849, James H. Flanigan included a list of fourteen statements in a pamphlet published in England, and this list was quoted and sometimes modified in various publications throughout the nineteenth century. For example, it was quoted in Charles MacKay's popular book The Mormons; or the Latter-day Saints (London, 1851, pp. 46–47). This list follows the Wentworth Letter almost verbatim, adding such points as "the Lord's supper" to Article 4; including "wisdom, charity, [and] brotherly love" among the gifts of the spirit in Article 7; and inserting a fourteenth article regarding the literal resurrection of the body. Other lists (usually composed by missionaries) were published in various parts of the world throughout this era.[28]
43. According to Hebrews 7:24, the Melchizedek Priesthood is not transferable. Why do Mormons pass it from one to another?
}} For a detailed response, see: Jesus is the only Melchizedek priesthood holder
44. If Mormonism came as a revelation from God, why are the Mormon Temple Oaths almost identical to the oaths of the Masonic Lodge?
}}
In order to understand the relationship between the temple endowment and Freemasonry it is useful to consider the temple experience. In the temple, participants are confronted with ritual in a form which is unknown in LDS worship outside of that venue. In the view of some individuals the temple endowment is made up of two parts:
It is in the ritual presentation of the endowment teachings and covenants that the similarities between the LDS temple worship and Freemasonry are the most apparent. The question is, why would this be the case?
It is the opinion of some people that in developing the endowment Joseph Smith faced a problem. He wished to communicate, in a clear and effective manner, some different (and, in some cases, complex) religious ideas. These included such abstract concepts as
The theory is that Joseph needed to communicate these ideas to a diverse population; some with limited educational attainments, many of whom were immigrants; several with only modest understanding of the English language; all of whom possessed different levels of intellectual and spiritual maturity—but who needed to be instructed through the same ceremony.
Joseph Smith's very brief experience with Freemasonry before the introduction of the full LDS endowment may have reminded him of the power of instruction through ritual and repetition. Some people believe that Joseph may have seized upon Masonic tools as teaching devices for the endowment's doctrines and covenants during the Nauvoo era. Other people are of the opinion that since these elements were previously present in the worship of the Kirtland Temple they were not 'borrowed' by the Prophet at all.
Regardless, the use of symbols was characteristic of Joseph Smith's era; it was not unique to him or Masonry:
Symbols on buildings, in literature, stamped on manufactured goods, etc. were not endemic to Mormons and Masons but were common throughout all of mid-nineteenth century American society (as even a cursory inspection of books, posters, buildings and photos of the periods will bear out.) So, assuming [Joseph] Smith felt a need to communicate specific principles to his Saints, he might naturally develop a set of easily understood symbols as were already in familiar use about him. [29]
45. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever?Author's sources:
This scripture is not a prophecy that the Nauvoo House would stand "forever and ever." It is a command to build the Nauvoo house, and to permit Joseph and his family to "have place therein" "forever and ever." Leaders of the Church constantly encouraged members in Nauvoo to live up to this commandment. Due to a lack of funds, workmen, and materials, the Saints eventually focused on the command to build the Nauvoo Temple (see DC 124:55.) God may issue commands, but such commands are not always obeyed. And, God may alter commands if the free agent choices of enemies alter the situation, as the same section of the D&C could tell the critics, if they read the entirety (DC 124:49).
46. If genealogies are important, why does the New Testament tell Christians to avoid them?Author's sources:
- Scripture reference: 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9
Critics charge that the Bible condemns genealogy, and therefore the Latter-day Saint practice of compiling family histories is anti-Biblical, often citing 1 Timothy 1:4 or Titus 3:9.
The Bible does not condemn all genealogy per se. Rather, it rejects the use of genealogy to "prove" one's righteousness, or the truth of one's teachings. It also rejects the apostate uses to which some Christians put genealogy in some varieties of gnosticism.
Latter-day Saints engage in genealogy work so that they can continue the Biblical practice—also endorsed by Paul—of providing vicarious ordinances for the dead, such as baptism (See 1 Corinthians 15:29) so that the atonement of Christ may be available to all who would choose it, living or dead. See: Baptism for the dead
This can be seen through its many genealogical lists, including two such lists for Jesus Christ Himself. (See Matthew 1:1–24 and Luke 3:23–38.)
The condemnation of "genealogies" in Timothy and Titus likely came because:
Since all these genealogies were either speculative or fabricated, they could cause endless, pointless debate.[32] Rather Paul wants the faith (in Christ) which builds up ("edifying") testimonies and lives.
Online |
|
Print |
|
Navigators |
Critical sources |
|
47. The Bible says, “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin”. Why did Brigham Young say that there are some sins which can be atoned for only by the shedding of ones own blood?
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matthew 12:31-32, see also Luke 12:10)
}}
From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior's sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ.
Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood-presumably by capital punishment-as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood Atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.
Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced "blood Atonement," by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement-which was based on voluntary submission by an offender-into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood Atonement.[33]
As one historian noted,
That the doctrine [of blood atonement] was preached by high officials is a matter of record; the intent of the sermons became a matter of conjecture; and the results therefrom set vivid imaginations working overtime. Blood fairly flowed through the writing of such men as Beadle in Life in Utah or the Mysteries of Mormonism and Polygamy, in Linn's The Story of Mormonism, and even Stenhouse's anonymous chapter on Reformation and Blood Atonement in his Rocky Mountain Saints. Numerous killings, including the Mountain Meadows massacre, were credited as the fruits of the doctrine....
Omitted from quotations used by the anti-Mormons were restraining clauses such as follow from Brigham Young:
. . . The time has been in Israel under the law of God that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life.
The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.
The doctrine of blood atonement which involved concern for the salvation of those to be subjected to it, could have little meaning in the [p.62] Mountain Meadows massacre, or any other of the murders laid unproved on the Mormon threshold (emphasis added).[34]
Despite the critics' claims, there is evidence that some crimes were considered worthy of death, even in the apostolic age among Christians:
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him....[Chapter 5] If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not" (1 John 3:15; 1 John 5:16-18) (italics added).
48. God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made. Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons?Author's sources:
- Scripture reference: Genesis 3:21
}}
"There was no condemnation of the aprons Adam and Eve wore while in the Garden of Eden, only a chastisement and grave consequences for eating of the forbidden fruit. In actuality, the Lord demonstrated his agreement with the covering of their nakedness. That agreement along with the result of now having to live in a different world, with harsh conditions as compared to life in the garden, the Lord gave them something BETTER to clothe themselves with. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” (Genesis 3:21)[35]
49. Why do Mormons insist that Ezekiel 37:15-22 is about two books instead of about two kingdoms as god Himself explained in verse 22?
For more information, see The Book of Mormon as the Stick of Ephraim.
50. If Acts 3:20, 21 is a prophecy about the restoration of Mormonism, why didn’t Jesus return in 1830?
}}
51. Revelation 14:6,7 is part of the body of prophecy about the future Great Tribulation. How could that passage have been fulfilled by Moroni in 1830?
}}
52. In light of Ezekiel 28:13-15 and Hebrews 1:5, how can Satan and Jesus be brothers (as the Mormons teach)? (note: Satan was created)
"The whole world is gone after Him." Did all the world go after Christ? "Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children," and "the whole world lieth in the wicked one." Does "the whole world" there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were "of God?" The words "world" and "all" are used in seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that "all" means all persons , taken individually.[36]
"Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin"."
And with the clarity that historical consciousness has conferred relative to Jesus' being a human being in all things substantially like us, many things about the meaning of Incarnation too can be clarified. One is that one cannot really think of a preexistence of Jesus. ... But one cannot think in terms of the preexistence of Jesus; what is preexistent to Jesus is God, the God who became incarnate in Jesus. Doctrine underscores the obvious here that Jesus is really a creature like us, and a creature cannot preexist creation. one may speculate on how Jesus might have been present to God's eternal intentions and so on, but a strict preexistence of Jesus to his earthly existence is contradictory to his consubstantiality with us, unless we too were preexistent.("The Case For Spirit Christology", Theological Studies 53/2 (June 92))
53. If no person ever receives the Holy Spirit before baptism or without the laying on of hands, how does a Mormon explain the case of Cornelius?Author's sources:
- Scripture reference: Acts 10:44-47
There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.[37]
The Bible, however, is clear that the gift of the Holy Ghost comes by the laying on of hands by those in authority (e.g., Acts 19:1-6). }}
54. If baptism for the dead was a Christian ceremony, why did Paul use the pronoun “they” rather than “we” or “ye”? Why did he exclude himself and other Christians when referring to it?Author's sources:
- Scripture reference: 1 Corinthians 15:29
In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul cited the early Christian practice of proxy baptism for the dead as evidence of a future resurrection and judgment. Most non-Latter-day Saint scholars have failed to note the importance of this passage. Some pass it off as an outmoded practice of the early church, while others believe it refers to an apostate or heretical doctrine.
But historical records are clear on the matter. Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice. Of the Marcionites of the fourth century, Epiphanius wrote:
“In this country—I mean Asia—and even in Galatia, their school flourished eminently and a traditional fact concerning them has reached us, that when any of them had died without baptism, they used to baptize others in their name, lest in the resurrection they should suffer punishment as unbaptized.” (Heresies, 8:7.)[38]
Paul is criticizing those who practice baptism for the dead, and yet deny the resurrection, pointing out that this is inconsistent—why baptize for those who will not be saved and resurrected? Thus, Paul does not include himself and some others because he is not guilty of this theological inconsistency. }}
The most obvious of these is 1 Corinthians 15:29:
There have been attempts to shrug this off as a reference by Paul to a practice he does not condone but only uses to support the doctrine of the resurrection. These claims are indefensible. Paul's statement makes no sense unless the practice was valid and the saints in Corinth knew it. This is easily demonstrated if we just imagine a young Protestant, who doubts the resurrection, who goes to his pastor with his problem. The pastor answers him, saying, "But what about the Mormons who baptize for the dead? If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?" You know what the young doubter would say. He would say, "Pastor, they're Mormons! What's your point?"
In fact, we know that baptism for the dead was practiced for a long time in the early church. As John A. Tvedtnes has noted:
Thus, baptism for the dead was banned about four hundred years after Christ by the church councils. Latter-day Saints would see this as an excellent example of the apostasy—church councils altering doctrine and practice that was accepted at an earlier date.
Tvedtnes continues:
Other sources can give credence to the Latter-day Saint position on this matter. Below we list a selective compilation of quotes from scholars that can demonstrate that:
The passage in the Bible is, at the very least, very short and cryptic. We can't know much about the practice accept the preceeding three assertions. Thus the following scholars would not affirm that the practice of vicarious baptism matches the modern Latter-day Saint conception of it i.e. that it was done on such a massive scale, for salvific purposes, etc. Some argue on linguistic grounds that this only had to do with catechumens (prospective converts to Christianity who died without baptism) but that is not fully substantiated by the text nor the historical context of the passage. Furthermore, as is noted by several scholars (a couple of which are included below), it is complicated by the fact that Paul spoke approvingly of believing Christians becoming vicarious, sanctifying vessels for non-believing spouses.[41] This could naturally be extrapolated to all kindred, non-believing dead.
There is much that we can't know from the text of the Bible itself following an exegetical approach. At some point, additional revelation is necessary to illuminate and expand on previous revelation. That would be the Latter-day Saint position. As Joseph Smith has said concerning the Restoration, it occured so that "a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times."[42] Latter-day Saints need not feel compelled to defend every last element of their theology from antiquity. Some elements may appear in seed and then be expanded on later by those "things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world[.]" What 1 Corinthians 15:29 can tell us without a doubt is that the practice is ancient and that it wasn't rejected by Paul or others of the earliest Christians. The Greek of the passage is unequivocally said to support the notion that vicarious baptism was performed. Other revelation outside of the Bible can expand on it in the Restoration.[43]
Following is our selective listing of sources.[44] All bolded text has been added by the editor of this article:
This thorough treatment of the mention of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29 gives a meticulous analysis of Paul’s Greek argument, and lays out the dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of theories that have been put forth with respect to its interpretation. Barney concludes that “the most natural reading” and the “majority contemporary scholarly reading” is that of “vicarious baptism.” Therefore, “the Prophet Joseph Smith’s reading of the passage to refer to such a practice was indeed correct.”
55. Since the Bible says that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife, how can Mormons claim that polygamy is proper for New Testament Christians?Author's sources:
- Scripture reference: 1 Timothy 3:2
}}
With the authority of the Bible behind them, early Mormons argued for 'plural marriage,' and some Mormon fundamentalist sects continue to practice polygyny. They were and are right: if the Bible provides authoritative models, then a man should be allowed to have more than one wife, as did Abraham, Jacob, David, and other biblical heroes, with no hint of divine disapproval.
—Michael Coogan, God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (New York, N.Y.: Twelve, 2010), 78–79.
While sometimes forced to admit that some Old Testament figures practiced polygamy, some Christians insist that there was no biblical mandate or command to practice plural marriage.
This claim is false; levirate marriage was mandated by the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).
Even if true, this claim is immaterial. God did not condemn the practice of plural marriage in the Bible. If it was everywhere and always forbidden, God could and would have done so. Early Christian authors understood this.
The details of this practice are outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-6, which the Sadducees quote in asking the question to Jesus. The practice of levirate marriage did not make any conditions on whether or not the brother-in-law was married. There was a way for the brother-in-law to avoid this marriage, through a ceremony called halitza, which was a mark of shame on the brother-in-law for refusing to continue his brother's name, thus declaring that his brother was irrevocably dead. This secondary option however, has become much more relevant to the modern practice of Judaism than it was to ancient Israel. Additionally, the practice makes no distinction to whether or not the brother was already married. It is the only instance in the Old Testament where polygamy was mandated under certain circumstances. Finally, the widow with no children, upon the death of her husband, was automatically considered to be betrothed, or engaged, to the next brother in the family of her now-deceased husband.
This practice was changed somewhat in Talmudic law where we find more than a hundred clarifications and expansions on the practice. Among these was a shift towards the practice of halitza being preferable to levirate marriage. This became a ban that was established by religious law in modern Israel in 1957. Because of this, there was an interesting case reported in 1998 in the Spring Newsletter of the International Council of Jewish Women. It describes the unusual case of a married woman, living in Israel, who had a single daughter. In 1991, the family was involved in a serious automobile accident, and the daughter died immediately. The husband died hours later. According to Jewish law, the woman (who was childless at the time of her husband's death) was immediately placed in the role of the childless widow. Before she could remarry, she needed to go through the halitza ceremony with the only living brother of her late husband, who lived in Paris. This case was of significance because the brother-in-law refused to perform the ceremony. At first the Jewish courts simply ordered the brother-in-law to either perform the ceremony, or to pay the woman a thousand dollars a month for maintenance. He refused to do either. It took the woman six years to get the brother-in-law to perform the ceremony, and he also ended up paying her thousands of dollars as ordered by the religious courts.
This practice was not just a custom, but an integral part of the religious law at the time of Jesus. While the above story happened only recently, ancient Israel was just as fervent in their keeping the Law of Moses, even in cases such as this. While a hypothetical situation was proposed to Jesus, it was a hypothetical situation that could actually happen, and the statements provided by the authors do not represent correctly this practice.
Some Christians claim that plural marriage has no Biblical precedents—they point to condemnation of King David and King Solomon as evidence that polygamy is always forbidden by God. Some claim that Abraham's polygamy "portrays his acceptance of plural marriage as a mark of disobedience to, and a lack of faith in, God." It is claimed that since the Bible didn't allow a man to marry two sisters, this proves that LDS plural marriage was "unbiblical" because some Mormons did so.
The Bible does not forbid plural marriage. In fact, many of the most noble Biblical figures (e.g., Abraham) had more than one wife. Furthermore, Biblical laws quoted by critics forbid kings from being led astray by plural spouses, or entering relationships not sanctioned by God's authority. However, the same Biblical laws provide guidelines for legitimate plural relationships.
This problem was mentioned in Deuteronomy:
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother...17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away... (Deuteronomy 17:15,17
Critics ignore the fact that only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat equitably plural wives and children. (See Deuteronomy 21:15-17.) Why does He not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He instruct the Israelites on how to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?
So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.
David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (see 2 Samuel 12:1-27. Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:
7 ¶ And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. (2 Samuel 12:7-10)
Nathan here tells David that the Lord "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.
But, David sinned and did evil in the matter of Uriah. If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for it now? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier?
Solomon's problem is described:
1 BUT king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love...
7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. (1 Kings 11:1-8
Solomon's wives turned his heart away from the Lord, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.
David and Solomon do not prove the critics' point, but in fact demonstrate that plural marriage may, on occasion, be sanctioned (as in David's case certainly).
But, we need not rely on these examples only to demonstrate that plural marriage was practiced by righteous followers of God in the Bible. Other cases include:
and also possibly:
As noted above, Deuteronomy 21:15 provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives. Further instructions are also given in Exodus 21:10. Why did God not ban plural marriage through Moses if it is always an immoral act?
Latter-day Saint plural marriage did not rely on biblical authority or interpretation (though they used biblical parallels to explain and understand the command which they believed they had received from God via a modern prophet.)
Marrying two sisters was quite frequent, possibly because sisters had already learned to get along together, which made for more harmonious plural families. One researcher noted:
Marriage to the wife's sister, defined as incest only by Anglican canon law, is the only form of polygamous marriage of the [potentially 'incestuous] categories...that occurs in significant numbers. [67]
The Saints did not claim to be restoring Mosaic plural marriage—they only used Moses' example as precedent for the fact that God could and had commanded plural marriage in the past. The specific structure, rules, and restrictions varied from time to time as guided by prophets.
D&C 132 tells Joseph and others to "do the works of Abraham." What are the "works of Abraham" and how does this relate to plural marriage?
The "works of Abraham" are fundamentally about obedience to God's laws, obedience to any commandment given, and willingness to sacrifice. For Joseph and the early Saints, a prominent part of such works was plural marriage, but this was (in a sense) incidental—the great work was obedience to covenant and law; plural marriage was simply their burden and trial.
It is often casually assumed that "the works of Abraham" refer mainly to plural marriage.[68] A consideration of both the phrase's orgins, and its use in D&C 132, may suggest that a broader meaning is intended.
The phrase has its origins in the gospel of John. Jesus rebuked unrighteous Jews, saying:
...Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father (John 8:34-38).
Stung, the Jews replied, "Abraham is our father." Jesus answered:
If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham (John 8:39-40).
Even before the abolition of plural marriage, leaders of the Church understood this,[69] though many also used obedience to the command to practice plural marriage as a pre-eminent example.[70]
Yet, it is not simply as a polygamist that Abraham is appealed to:
29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
The works of Abraham, we remember, were obedience and service to God. Joseph and others were to "enter into [God's] law," which has been explained earlier in the section as the law of sealing as part of the new and everlasting covenant (D&C 132꞉7; see here for a more extensive discussion of the new and everlasting covenant).
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
We must not confuse "the law" to which verse 34 refers with "the law" described in verse 7: "The conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise...are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."
"The law" which Sarah obeys or follows is later (v. 64-65) referred to as "the law of Sarah"—this law seems to imply that a man who will practice plural marriage must first give his wife the opportunity to approve and endorse the new wife. Thus, the rhetorical question and answer is not
But, rather:
We here recall that this revelation was written to persuade Emma Smith to endorse plural marriage; this argument, then, is especially directed at her (see verses 51-56).
We note also that Abraham was not condemned—but not because plural marriage was "the law" and he practiced it, but because he was commanded and then acted. And, it was this fundamental obedience to any and every commandment that made Abraham great, as the next verse makes clear:
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
If taking a plural wife was "the law," which Abraham was bound by, then this analogy makes little sense—for it is surely not a law to murder. Indeed, the Lord acknowledges that the "default setting" for the law is not to kill. But, Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham took a plural wife not because it was the law, but because he was commanded (just as Joseph had been):
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
Abraham kept "the law"—the sealing power and conditions detailed earlier. He, Isaac, and Jacob were justified because they "did the works of Abraham"—they did "none other things than that which they were commanded."
The Lord returns to Abraham later in the section:
49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.
50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.
The same themes recur—Joseph has been obedient, and thus will join Abraham. He has sacrificed (as with Isaac, notably, rather than as with Hagar) in obedience.
The criticism that polygamy is irreligious appeals to western sensibilities which favor monogamy, and argues that polygamy is inconsistent with biblical Christianity or (ironically) the Book of Mormon itself.Even were there no such precedents, LDS theology has no problem accepting and implementing novel commandments, since the Saints believe in continuing revelation. I will not belabor the matter here, since ample resources are available.
This is a weak attack at best, and replies–devotional, apologetic, and scholarly–have been made to the claim. There is extensive, unequivocal evidence that polygamous relationships were condoned under various circumstances by biblical prophets, despite how uncomfortable this might make a modern Christian. Elder Orson Pratt was widely viewed as the victor in a three-day debate on this very point with Reverend John P. Newman, Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, in 1870.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
56. Why does the Mormon church teach that the broad way leads to the Terrestrial Heaven when Jesus taught that it leads to destruction?Author's sources:
- Scripture reference: Matthew 7:13,14
57. Are you sincere enough about your personal salvation that you will carefully study the following Bible references to discover the Bible’s way to salvation?Author's sources:
- Scripture reference: John 10:9; 1Corinthians 1:18; Ephesians 2:8-10; Colossians 1:12-14; Romans 4:8; 1 Peter 2:24; Acts 16:31; John 1:12; 1 John 5:12,13; Romans 5:1 and Romans 8:1
58. Are you courageous enough to personally receive the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart and follow the truth regardless of ridicule, antagonism or persecution?Author's sources:
- Scripture reference: John 1:12, Colossians 1:27, and Revelation 3:20
Click here for Part I (Q. 1-28)
Notes
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now