|
|
| (57 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{DoYouHaveQuestions}} | + | {{Main Page}} |
| | + | <onlyinclude> |
| | + | {{H2 |
| | + | |L=Answers to Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves |
| | + | |H=Answers to ''Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves'' |
| | + | |S=According to Contender Ministries, FAIR's responses are "deceptive and the original questions are still without adequate and truthful answers." The site owners also claim that "FAIR can pack a lot of deception into a paragraph or two." Apparently, this anti-Mormon ministry considers any interpretation of the Bible other than their own to be "deceptive." We invite our readers to thoroughly research and investigate our responses. If errors are discovered, we will be happy to correct them. |
| | + | |L1=Question: What is Contender Ministries' "Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves?" |
| | + | |L2=Response to "Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves" (Questions 1-28) |
| | + | |L3=Response to "Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves" (Questions 29-58) |
| | + | |L4=Countercult ministries: Contender Ministries |
| | + | }} |
| | + | </onlyinclude> |
| | + | {{FAIRAnalysisHeader |
| | + | |title="Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves" |
| | + | |author=Contender Ministries |
| | + | |noauthor= |
| | + | |section= |
| | + | |previous= |
| | + | |next= |
| | + | |notes= |
| | + | }} |
| | + | {{ChartQAMSATSummary}} |
| | + | {{:Question: What is Contender Ministries' "Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves?"}} |
| | + | {{:Answers to Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves/Questions 1-28}} |
| | + | {{:Answers to Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves/Questions 29-58}} |
| | + | {{:Countercult ministries/Contender Ministries}} |
| | | | |
| − | =Answers to ''Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves''=
| + | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> |
| − | | + | [[Category:Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves]] |
| − | Anti-Mormon literature tends to recycle common themes. One popular approach over the years is for critics to ask a series of "questions" under the guise of sincerity, but with the ultimate aim of casting doubt upon faith or tripping up members of the Church.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Such tactics are not new; Jesus repeatedly faced questioners from among critics during His earthly ministry.
| |
| − | | |
| − | One set of questions that has made rounds is found at Contender Ministries. Entitled ''Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves,'' the list consists of 58 questions detailed and answered on this page.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the questions, there may be two items after each question: '''Scripture reference''' and '''Other reference.''' These references are given as references for the actual questions by Contender Ministries; they are not provided by FAIR as part of the answer.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==General remarks about the questions==
| |
| − | | |
| − | There are a couple of interesting features to look for in this list. The first is that many of the questions don't just ask a question, they make an assertion. An example of this would be the question that person A asks person B: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" To answer "yes" or "no" is to agree to the assertion that at some point, you did beat your wife. This is the case with a question like question 15 below:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :"Why does the Mormon church teach that there is no eternal hell when the Book of Mormon teaches that there is?"
| |
| − | | |
| − | The assertion is that the Mormon church teaches that there is no eternal hell. Similarly, many of the questions start with a proposition - which must first be answered before the rest of the question has meaning. So, for instance, question 1:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :"If Gods are individuals who have passed through mortality and have progressed to Godhood, how ..."
| |
| − | | |
| − | Before the question can be meaningful, the first question must be answered in the affirmative. If you don't answer in the affirmative (as is the case with many of these questions that are actually assertions of LDS belief), then the rest of the question is largely meaningless. You can ask all sorts of things in this way without actually taking the responsibility for defending the implications of your questions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | A final point involves interpretation. When providing a biblical scripture as the backdrop for a question, these questions often assert or imply a specific reading or interpretation of the text. In many cases, the interpretation is bad. Isaiah, for example, lived at a time when Israelite religion was not strictly monotheistic in any sense. To read Isaiah's text as teaching some kind of strict monotheism does damage to the text, and if we (the respondents) disagree with the interpretation, it can change the question significantly (see for example questions 4 and 5).
| |
| − | | |
| − | __TOC__
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />1. If Gods are individuals who have passed through mortality and have progressed to Godhood, how has one person of the Trinity (the Holy Spirit) attained Godhood without getting a body?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Scripture reference: {{b||Acts|5|3-4}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Having a body is necessary for a fullness of joy ({{s||DC|93|33}}). It will be necessary for the Holy Spirit to receive a body at some point, but the timeframe in which He does so is not particularly important. (To travel to another country, one needs both a passport and an airplane ticket. It doesn't matter in which order one gets the passport or the ticket, but one must eventually have both in order to reach one's destination.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | If correct sequence is an imperative, critics must explain how Christ's atonement could be efficacious to those who were born, lived, and died prior to His crucifixion. The fact that it was effective should blunt any feigned requirement for sequence concerning the Holy Ghost's receipt of a physical body, a matter about which the Church has no official doctrine.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The critics repeat essentially the same objection below in #2. Repetition does not increase this question's cogency.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *''Learn more here:'' [[Holy_Ghost/Divinity_without_a_body]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />2. If Gods are individuals who have passed through an earth life to attain Godhood, how is it that one person of the Trinity (Jesus Christ) was God before He received a body or passed through earth life?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Matthew|1|23}} and {{b||Hebrews|10|5}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Having a body is necessary for a fullness of joy ({{s||DC|93|33}}). It was necessary that at some point Jesus receive a body, but the timeframe in which He did so is not particularly important. (To travel to another country, one needs both a passport and an airplane ticket. It doesn't matter in which order one gets the passport or the ticket, but one must eventually have both in order to reach one's destination.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | If correct sequence is an imperative, critics must explain how Christ's atonement could be efficacious to those who were born, lived, and died prior to His crucifixion. The fact that it was effective should blunt any feigned requirement for sequence concerning the Christ's receipt of a physical body.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is refreshing, though, to see anti-Mormon critics admit that the LDS consider Jesus Christ to be God. We trust they will remember this point.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The critics repeat essentially the same objection above in #1. Repetition does not increase this question's cogency.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *''Learn more here:'' [[Jesus Christ/Divinity_without_a_body]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />3. If the Book of Mormon really contains the fullness of the Gospel, why does it not teach the doctrine of “eternal progression”?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{s||DC|20|8,9}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Critics of the Book of Mormon misinterpret the meaning of the scriptural phrase ''fullness of the Gospel.'' The fullness of the Gospel is that Jesus Christ "came into the world to do the will of [the] Father" by working out a perfect atonement ({{s|3|Ne|27|13-22}}). The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."{{ref|q0301}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | *''Learn more here:'' [[Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />4. God said, “Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any”. How can there be Gods who are Elohim’s ancestors? Surely an all-knowing God would know this and wouldn’t speak falsehoods.==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Isaiah|44|8}}<br />
| |
| − | '''Other reference:''' Journal of Discourses Vol. 1, pg. 123
| |
| − | | |
| − | Critics often misunderstand the doctrine of [[Deification_of_man|''theosis'', or human deification]]. Yet, it is a doctrine shared by many early Christians and much of modern Eastern Christianity (e.g., Eastern Orthodox).
| |
| − | | |
| − | However, the question asked here represents a misunderstanding of the Isaiah scripture in its ancient context when compared with the rest of the Bible.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The critics again try to pad their questions by asking essentially the same question in #5 below.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [["No God beside me"]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />5. How can any men ever become Gods when the Bible says, “Before me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me”?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Isaiah|43|10}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Critics often misunderstand the doctrine of [[Deification_of_man|''theosis'', or human deification]]. Yet, it is a doctrine shared by many early Christians and much of modern Eastern Christianity (e.g., Eastern Orthodox).
| |
| − | | |
| − | However, the question asked here represents a misunderstanding of the Isaiah scripture in its ancient context when compared with the rest of the Bible. In this case, the reading is particularly problematic. The Christian site which asks this question would need to explain exactly what the scripture is referring to when it says "Before me" and "after me". Since they do not believe there is ever a time when God does not exist, it cannot really refer to anything at all, and certainly the text doesn't exclude a "during me" reading. This passage is actually a comparison which Isaiah is drawing between the God of Israel (YHWH) and the Canaanite deity worshipped by many Israelites at the time: Ba'al. Ba'al had become chief of the Canaanite pantheon by defeating Yaam (another Canaanite deity). And by extension there was the presumption that he could also be superseded (we see this in the Ugaritic myths). YHWH on the other hand did not replace anyone to become God, and, Isaiah claims, he would not be replaced. Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me". Such a text doesn't apply to the issue of strict monotheism, and it fits right in with an LDS model of Theosis - while we may reach an exalted state and become heirs to the kingdom, we do not replace God, nor do we desire to.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The critics again try to pad their questions by asking essentially the same question in #4 above.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [["No God beside me"]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />6. If Adam is the “only God with whom we have to do”, did Adam create himself?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Other reference:''' ''Journal of Discourses'' Vol. 1, pg. 50, 51
| |
| − | | |
| − | The reference is to the ''[[Journal of Discourses]],'' which is not LDS doctrine—the critics are being dishonest in their portrayal of LDS doctrine.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The interpretation put on this statement by the question has been disavowed by leaders of the Church, as in October 1976 general conference, when Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This question is trying to sneak in a question about [[Adam-God]] teaching. This is not a doctrine of the LDS Church, and has never been adopted as such.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Template:AdamWiki|Adam God wiki articles]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />7. Joseph Smith stated that without the ordinances and authority of the priesthood no man can see the face of God and live (D & C 84:21, 22). He also said that he saw God in 1820 (Joseph Smith 2:17). Joseph Smith, however, never received any priesthood until 1829 (D&C 13). How did he see God and survive? In which was he in error: his revelation in D & C 84:21, 22 or his experience in the grove?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | When {{s||DC|84|21-22}} is analyzed in context, it is apparent that the critics have misread LDS scripture. The pertinent passage says:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, ''the power of godliness'' is manifest. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, ''the power of godliness'' is not manifest unto men in the flesh; For without ''this'' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live. ({{s||DC|84|19-22}})
| |
| − | | |
| − | The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness." This power becomes available to mortals when they become one with the Spirit of God. As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||DC|67|11}}). Joseph Smith described this quickening in several of his First Vision recitations. He was thereby enabled to see God face to face and live.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some early Christian authors saw things in the same way as Joseph. For example, in an early Christian document called the ''Clementine Homilies'' the apostle Peter is portrayed as agreeing:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :For I maintain that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light. . . . For he who sees God cannot live. For the excess of light dissolves the flesh of him who sees; unless by the secret power of God the flesh be changed into the nature of light, so that it can see light.{{ref|q0701}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[D&C 84 says God not seen without priesthood?]]
| |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[No man has seen God]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />8. If a spirit is a being without a body (See Luke 24:39), why do Mormons teach that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b||John|4|24}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Note that in the KJV cited above, the word “is” is italicized. This is because the King James translators have inserted it on their own—it is not present in the Greek text from which the translation was made.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Secondly, the reader should be aware that the indefinite article (“a”, as in "a dog" or "a spirit") does not exist in Greek. Thus, the addition of the word "a" in English occurs at the discretion of the translators.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This leaves two Greek words: ''theos pneuma'' [θεος πνεμα]—“God spirit”. The JST resolves this translational issue by saying “for unto such hath God promised his spirit”. The word ''pneuma'', which is translated spirit, also means ‘life’ or ‘breath’. The King James Version of {{s||Revelation|13|15}} renders ‘pneuma’ as life. Thus "God is life," or "God is the breath of life" are potential alternative translations of this verse.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also, if God is a spirit and we have to worship him in spirit, do mortals have to leave our bodies to worship him?
| |
| − | | |
| − | As one non-LDS commentary noted:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God's being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than {{s|1|John|1|5}}, "God is light," or {{s||Deuteronomy|4|24}}, "Your God is a devouring fire." It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship.{{ref|q0801}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Thus, the critics misrepresent this Bible verse to attack the LDS.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[God is a Spirit]]
| |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Corporeality of God]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />9. If the Father is Elohim and Jesus is Jehovah (as the Mormons teach), how does a Mormon explain Deuteronomy 6:4, which in the Hebrew says, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah”?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | The use of the terms "Elohim" and "Jehovah" to specifically refer to the Father and Son respectively is a 20th-century usage adopted by the Church for clarity and precision. This is not intended to mean that the Biblical authors all use the terms in this way. Indeed, various Biblical authors have different usages; Deuteronomy often tries to obliterate evidence for the belief in two divine persons in early Jewish thought.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Elohim and Jehovah]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />10. If the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the Gospel, why doesn’t it teach that God was once a man?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | The Book of Mormon's definition of "fulness of the gospel" is not "all truths taught in the Church." The fulness of the gospel is simply defined as the core doctrines of Christ's atonement and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Critics do not trouble to understand what the Book of Mormon says before attacking it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />11. If Mormonism is the restored church, which is based upon the Bible, why are Mormon leaders so quick to state that the Bible is “translated wrong” when faced with some conflict between the Bible and Mormonism?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Leaders of the Church are not "so quick" to state this. The critics need to provide evidence for their assertion.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The LDS revere the Bible and consider it accurate in the vast majority of its particulars. When LDS quarrel with the Bible, it is not with the original Biblical text, but usually with the ''interpretation'' which their critics put on the Bible. In a few instances, the Church disagrees with changes made to the Bible text by uninspired copyists or later authors. All scholars, save fundamentalists, realize that many such changes occurred in both the Old and New Testament. (See: [[Biblical inerrancy]].)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Critics like Contender Ministries act as if their reading of the Bible is the only possible one—but, the thousands of different Christian sects are ample proof that Christians have read just about every aspect of the Bible in more than one way. The disagreement is not over whether the Bible is true, but what ''reading'' of the Bible is the proper one to get at the truth.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Bible basics]]
| |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Biblical completeness|Biblical completeness and sufficiency]]
| |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Biblical inerrancy]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />12. If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Other reference:''' ''Journal of Discourses'' Vol. 1, page 50
| |
| − | | |
| − | Again, the critics are relying on ''[[Journal of Discourses]],'' which is not a standard for LDS doctrine. The Book of Mormon asserts that Jesus was born to a virgin ({{s|1|Nephi|11|15-21}}). As the Church responded to this question posed by Fox News:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ezra Taft Benson taught:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, ''both before and after she gave birth''. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/20#20 1 Nephi 11:20].){{ref|q1201}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | LDS leaders are often at pains to emphasize that God's Fatherhood of Christ is ''literal''; i.e., God is actually the Father of Christ's mortal physical body. A modern reader can doubtless think of many ways in which a mortal can become pregnant by a man without sexual intercourse (e.g., ''in vitro'' fertilization). God doubtless has many more techniques available to Him.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained his reason for his emphasis:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Ne. 11:13-21), was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost" resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.{{ref|q1202}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Critics of the Church like to dig up quotes like those from Brigham Young for their shock value, but such statements do not represent the official doctrine of the Church. Furthermore, critics often read statements through their own theological lenses, and ignore the key distinctions which LDS theology is attempting to make by these statements. Instead, they try to put a salacious spin on the teaching, when this is far from the speakers' intent.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Jesus Christ's conception]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />13. Why did Christ not return in 1891 as Joseph Smith predicted?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Other reference:''' ''History of the Church,'' Vol. 2 page 182
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is not clear what this attack is based on; the reference given to ''History of the Church'' 2:182 says nothing about Christ's return.
| |
| − | | |
| − | At any rate, the passage in question is found in Section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It is reported in abbreviated form, and Joseph acknowledged as he recorded it that he didn't understand the meaning or intent of the revelation. Joseph Smith reported:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter ({{s||DC|130|14-15}}).
| |
| − | | |
| − | Many critics end the quote at this point, and then they hope the reader will assume that the statement is a prophecy that the Savior would come in the year 1890 or 1891, since the Prophet Joseph was born in 1805. However, if the reader will continue further in that passage, they will see that Joseph Smith himself stated:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face ({{s||DC|130|16}}).
| |
| − | | |
| − | The actual content of Joseph's prophecy does not occur until the next verse:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.({{s||DC|130|17}}.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Without a doubt, that prophecy came true. The Lord did not return to the earth for His Second Coming before that time.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:''[[Joseph Smith prophesied the Second Coming to be in 1890|Second coming by 1890?]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />14. Journal of Discourses Vol. 2, page 210 says Jesus was being married to Mary and Martha in Cana. Why then was he INVITED to his own wedding?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b||John|2|1,2}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Let's look at the reference in the ''[[Journal of Discourses]].'' It is a talk being given by Orson Hyde, then an Apostle in the Church:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.{{ref|q1401}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is no great surprise that Orson Hyde, that great defender of the principle of polygamy, believed that Jesus was married and had children. In fact, in the very next paragraph of the talk he provided the rationale for his belief on the matter:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth."{{ref|q1402}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Even though Orson Hyde, and perhaps other leaders, believed that Jesus was married and they were able to vigorously defend their beliefs, that does not mean that Jesus really was married. Teachings in the ''Journal of Discourses'' are not canonized scripture, and it is permissible for Mormons to believe what they want about the marital status of Jesus. Just because ''some'' Mormons believe that Jesus was married does not mean that ''all'' Mormons believe it or that all Mormons ''must'' believe it. It is speculation that Jesus was married, but it is just as much speculation that He wasn't, as the scriptures are silent on the issue.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Despite the fact that the original question tries to impute the beliefs of Orson Hyde to the entire Church, the question seems to infer that the marriage at Cana (recounted in {{b||John|2|1-11}}) could not have been Jesus' wedding because Jesus was INVITED to the wedding. This seems a weak play against the current custom of weddings—for the bride and groom to invite others—without discussing what the custom may have been at the time of Christ.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Again entering into the realm of speculation, was it custom 2,000 years ago for the bridegroom to be invited to the wedding? We are left to wonder, and Contender Ministries, in this question, does nothing to give evidence that it wasn't the custom. Instead, they discount a non-canonical belief of an early LDS leader based upon the translation of a single word in a single verse in the gospel of John.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Was Jesus Christ married?]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />15. Why does the Mormon church teach that there is no eternal hell when the Book of Mormon teaches that there is?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{s|1|Ne|14|3}}, {{s|2|Ne|9|16}}, {{s|2|Ne|28|21-23}}, {{s||Mosiah|3|25}}, {{s||Alma|34|35}}, {{s||Helaman|6|28}}, and {{s||Helaman|3|25,26}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Our critic doesn't give us any examples of "the Mormon church teach[ing] that there is no eternal hell." A search of General Conference addresses from 1897 to 2007 doesn't turn up a single instance of any LDS leader teaching there is "no hell" — in fact, that phrase is almost exclusively used by speakers when quoting {{s|2|Nephi|28|22}} ("And behold, others [the devil] flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell...."; this passage was quoted 21 times between 1918 and 1995).
| |
| − | | |
| − | LDS scriptures and leaders emphatically teach there ''is'' a hell, and it is eternal. Where our critic is probably mistaken is that the traditional Christian view of hell—fire, brimstone, pitchforks, and [http://home.satx.rr.com/pragmatico/images/Cartoon.JPG accordions]—is described as ''metaphorical'' by LDS scriptures: "''as'' a lake of fire and brimstone" ({{s|2|Nephi|9|16}}; {{s||Mosiah|3|27}}; {{s||Alma|12|17}}).
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Luke|23|43}} and {{s||Alma|40|12,16}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jesus told the thief "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise," but three days later, he told Mary Magdalene "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father" ({{s||John|20|17}}). If Jesus was with the thief "today" in paradise, but three days later had not yet ascended to the Father, where was he during that time? It wasn't "heaven," it was what we know through latter-day revelation as the spirit world for the righteous. The thief still had to accept the gospel and submit to judgment, the same as the rest of us.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />17. How did Nephi with a few men on a new continent build a temple like Solomon’s while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b|1|Kings|5|13-18}} and {{s|2|Ne|5|15-17}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Nephi is clear that the temple is not to the scale or grandeur of Solomon's temple; he merely patterns the building and its functions after the Jewish temple.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine. ({{s|2|Nephi|5|16}})
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Book of Mormon answers the critics' questions; they seem to have read it only to attack, not to understand. Nephi also probably had access to more workmen than the few members of the original Jerusalem party under Lehi.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Temple in New World|Temple in the New World]]
| |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon demographics]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />18. If the book of Mormon is true, why hasn’t a valid geography been established for the book?==
| |
| − | A valid internal geography of the Book of Mormon has been constructed, in both the [[Book_of_Mormon_geography:Old_World|Old]] and [[Book_of_Mormon_geography:New_World|New]] worlds. This has led to the identification of [[Book_of_Mormon_geography:Old_World#Nahom|Nahom]], and several other Old World sites.
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{VideoBoM1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | {| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
| |
| − | !Old World!!New World
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | style="width:50%" valign="top"| <videoflash>mjDAu8PZRco</videoflash> ||
| |
| − | <videoflash>sBsCxfOLZCc</videoflash>
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Establishing a definitive New World location is more difficult, since we have no point of reference to start from (as with Jerusalem in the Old World).
| |
| − | | |
| − | This does not mean, however, that a valid geography does not exist.
| |
| − | | |
| − | And, even if the geography were completely unknown, would this change the truth or falsity of the Book of Mormon's message? We know where the city of Troy is, but this doesn't make the ''Iliad'' scripture.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />19. Why was Joseph Smith still preaching against polygamy in October 1843 after he got his revelation in July 1843 commanding the practice of polygamy?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{s||DC|132|}}<br />
| |
| − | '''Other reference:''' History of the Church Vol. 6, page 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, page 324
| |
| − | | |
| − | Joseph had two difficulties:
| |
| − | # he had to counter the accusations of John C. Bennett about licentious and unauthorized plural marriage in Nauvoo. Many of his statements were targeted at rebutting Bennett's distortions.
| |
| − | # he needed to protect the few members who were practicing plural marriage, for fear of mob reaction, who would (and later did) seize on the practice of plural marriage as justification for violence against the Saints.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''Extensive further information:'' [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc39.pdf Lengthy paper on history of plural marriage ]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />20. If Lehi left Jerusalem before 600 B.C., how did he learn about synagogues?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{s|2|Ne|26|26}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is entirely reasonable that Lehi would have known about synagogues. After the centralization of temple worship during the Deuteronomic Reformation, local congregations assembled together in chambers in city gates for non-sacrifical worship. These chambers in city gates, discovered in archaeological sites, were, according to some non-LDS scholars, ''proto-synagogues.''{{ref|q2001}} Other Jewish scholars believe that synagogues date back to the Exodus, during the time of Moses.{{ref|q2002}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />21. If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to become white when they become Mormons?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' 2 Nephi 30:6—prior to 1981 revision
| |
| − | | |
| − | The verse in question says that the Lamanites will become a "pure and delightsome" people. In the 1830 edition, this read "white and delightsome." When Joseph Smith prepared the 1837 edition for publication, he exchanged "white" for "pure"—probably because he realized that readers were seeing this as a literal issue, rather than symbolic. The change removed the ambiguity.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Unfortunately, this change went unnoticed in subsequent editions, until the preparation of the 1981 edition. So, the 1981 edition restored a reading that went back to 1837; the change is not (as the critics want to portray it) a "recent" change.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The history of the change makes it clear why "Indians do not become white"—the verse is not about skin color, but about purity before God.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon textual changes: white or pure?]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />22. What kind of chariots did the Nephites have in 90 B.C. some 1500 years before the introduction of the wheel on the Western Hemisphere?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{s||Alma|18|9}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Good question; we don't really know. And because we don't know, it is improper to assume that those chariots may have had wheels. They may have, or they may have not had them—we just don't know.
| |
| − | | |
| − | As to when the wheel was introduced to the Western hemisphere, the question is wrong to assert that it was approximately 1400-1500 AD that it was introduced. Indigenous populations had the wheel, as shown by the discovery of wheeled toys left in tombs.{{ref|q2201}}
| |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon anachronisms/Chariots and Wheels]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />23. How do Mormons account for the word “church” in the Book of Mormon, about 600 B.C., which was centuries before the beginning of the Church on the day of Pentecost?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{s|1|Ne|4|26}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Book of Mormon is a ''translation''—it therefore expresses itself in terms familiar to 19th century readers. This does not mean that the Nephites called their groups "a church." (They hardly could have, since English did not exist.) It merely means they got together in groups to pray, worship, and teach each other. What better term to use than "church" in an English translation?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Latter-day Saints do not believe that the worship of Christ began after His death and resurrection; rather, they believe that the atonement and salvation of Christ has been declared to all the prophets since Adam.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />24. How do Mormons account for the italicized words in the King James Version (indicating their absence in the Hebrew and Greek) being found in the Book of Mormon? (A comparison of Mosiah 14 and Isaiah 53 will provide at least 13 examples)==
| |
| − | | |
| − | The italics do indeed identify words added by the translators. They were "added" because they were necessary words for making sense of the translation: in Hebrew and Greek the words are sometimes implied, but necessary for English to make sense. (Italics can mislead us, however, in suggesting that there is such a thing as a word-for-word translation without interpretation, save for the italics.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Thus, in some cases the italic words are necessary, and Joseph or another translator would have had to put them in. In other cases, Joseph removed the italic words. (It's not clear that Joseph even owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation era, much less that he knew what the italics meant.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | This is really a question about why the Book of Mormon text is often very close (or, in some cases, identical to) the King James Version. If Joseph was trying to forge a book (as the critics claim) then why did he quote from the Bible, the one book his readers would be sure to know?
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />25. How did the French word “adieu” get into the Book of Mormon?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{s||Jacob|7|27}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | One could reasonably ask the same question of any English words—how did they get into the Book of Mormon? The answer, of course, is by translation. It is the translator's choice as to which words are used to convey the concepts expressed in the original texts. Just because the word ''adieu'' is in the English translation does not mean that the word ''adieu'' was in the untranslated plates.
| |
| − | | |
| − | At any rate, ''adieu'' is a word of French origin that is ''also'' an English word. It was frequently found in dictionaries and English works of Joseph Smith's day. It even occurred in Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Additional information: [["Adieu" in the Book of Mormon]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />26. Was it right or wrong for Solomon to have many wives? (See Jacob 2:24; D & C 132:38,39) Which is it?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is true that Solomon was condemned for some of his marriage practices. 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... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jacob was likely referring to these prohibitions. He emphasized that monogamy was the default command to God's people, unless otherwise commanded.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The command to kings is that they:
| |
| − | #not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s|2|Samuel|12|8}}, {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}});
| |
| − | #that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God ({{s|1|Kings|11|3-4}});
| |
| − | #not take excessive numbers of wives (see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-8}})
| |
| − | | |
| − | Solomon's wives turned his heart away from, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives (and, indeed, Solomon was greatly blessed and praised by God even while practicing polygamy on a large scale). But, Solomon was later condemned for wives taken without authority that turned his heart away from the Lord.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more'': [[Polygamy not Biblical]]
| |
| − | * ''To learn more'': [[Book of Mormon condemns polygamy]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />27. If polygamy was a provision for increasing population rapidly, why did God give Adam only one wife?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Normally, this conclusion is drawn from a bad interpretation of a passage in the Book of Mormon found in Jacob 2:30. However, Jacob 2:30 probably refers to the practice of Levirate marriage found in the Law of Moses, a practice which would actually require the Israelites to practice polygamy under certain specific circumstances. One of the problems with the question (implied in its interpretation) is that it hasn't (and doesn't) increase populations rapidly.
| |
| − | | |
| − | That being said, ''one'' purpose of plural marriage is increasing ''righteous'' posterity. God apparently did not feel that this was needed with Adam and Eve. They did not have to contend with a larger, wicked group of inhabitants all around them as some other prophets have had to do.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />28. D&C 129:4, 5 says, “When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you. If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.” How can this test distinguish between an angel of God and a Jehovah’s Witness missionary...or a Mormon Elder.==
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{s||DC|129|2}} provides a clear context for this type of test. It is talking about proving the identity of a personage who can appear suddenly inside of an enclosed room ({{s||John|20|19}}) and suddenly vanish out of sight ({{s||Luke|24|31}}). It is not talking about mortals such as Mormon Elders or Jehovah's Witnesses. D&C 129 also states that the test is meant for personages who exhibit a degree of "glory" or "light" (vv. 6, 8). Again, this has nothing to do with mortals.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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 Kirkland Temple as two different people?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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 prepratory role.{{ref|q2901}} And, the angel Gabriel applied the "spirit of Elias" to John even prior to his birth. (See {{s||Luke|1|15-17}}.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some critics have seen Joseph's ideas above as completely ''ad hoc'': but, he was not the only one to understand Elias in this sense. Alexander Campbell, a noted American clergyman, wrote an attack on the Book of Mormon in which he expressed a similar idea:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :The Jews gave up their business and attended to him. He obtained one Nathan in Jerusalem to pass for his Elias, or forerunner.{{ref|q2902}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more'': [[Elias and Elijah at the Kirtland Temple]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{s||Moroni|8|8}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | #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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' P of GP Moses 3:14 and {{s||DC|116-117|}}; {{b||Genesis|2|8-15}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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, and about which more is said in LDS scripture.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''To learn more:'' [[Garden of Eden in Missouri?]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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):
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''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.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is clear that Brigham was making several points which the critics ignore:
| |
| − | | |
| − | * the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God
| |
| − | * to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets
| |
| − | * it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward
| |
| − | * if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Faithful Saints cannot expect to receive "all that the Father has" if they willfully disobey God if He chooses to command the practice of plural marriage.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more'': [[Brigham Young in JD 11%2C page 269]]
| |
| − | * ''Extensive further information:'' [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc39.pdf Lengthy paper on history of plural marriage ]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Other reference:''' ''Journal of Discourses'' Vol. 5, page 161
| |
| − | | |
| − | No evidence is given that this was, indeed, 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|q3301}} 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|q3302}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | This was not prophecy.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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”.)==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Other reference:''' ''Articles of Faith,'' by Talmage, page 262, 34th Ed.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were consistent in [[Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Gold_plates#Descriptions_of_the_plates|their witness]] that the plates weighed 40-60 pounds.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The critics here assume that the "golden plates" are pure gold, and a solid ''block'' of gold. Neither conclusion is warranted.
| |
| − | | |
| − | # Pure gold plates would be too soft to hold engraving well. An alloy of gold and copper called "tumbaga," known in Mesoamerica, would suit both the appearance and weight of the plates.
| |
| − | # The plates were not a solid block of gold, but a set of page-like leaves, which reduces the weight by about 50%.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This information has been available since the 1960s; the critics have not done their homework, and continue to try to deceive unwary members with the same tired accusations that have been "asked and answered" in great detail.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Gold_plates|Golden plates]]
| |
| − | * ''See also:'' {{JBMS-10-1-15}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />35. When Christ died, did darkness cover the land for three days of [sic] for three hours?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Luke|23|44}} and {{s|3|Ne|8|19,23}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The critics here struggle to find fault.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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)==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'': [[Book of Mormon textual changes]]
| |
| − | * ''To learn more:'': [[Textual_criticism|Biblical textual criticism]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />37. If God speaks through a prophet, why do Mormons vote on whether or not to receive and authorize it?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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:
| |
| − | | |
| − | : And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey. ({{b||Joshua|24|24}})
| |
| − | | |
| − | Why do critics attack the Church for a practice that is clearly Biblical?
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Abraham:Book of the Dead|Book of the Dead]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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'' 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''Learn more here:'' [[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Reformed Egyptian|Reformed Egyptian]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Other reference:''' ''The Young Woman’s Journal,'' Vol 3, pages 263, 264
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''Learn more here:'' [[Brigham Young and moonmen]]
| |
| − | * ''Learn more here:'' [[Joseph Smith and moonmen]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />41. Why do Mormons not study Hebrew and Greek so that they can intelligently discuss the accuracy of the translation of the Bible?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />42. Joseph Smith prepared fourteen Articles of Faith. Why has the original No. 11 been omitted?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''To learn more:'' [[Differing versions of the Articles of Faith]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />43. According to Hebrews 7:24, the Melchizedek Priesthood is not transferable. Why do Mormons pass it from one to another?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Sadly, 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | For extensive discussion and links to non-LDS scholarship, follow the link below.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Jesus is the only Melchizedek priesthood holder]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />44. If Mormonism came as a revelation from God, why are the Mormon Temple Oaths almost identical to the oaths of the Masonic Lodge?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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 tenants.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />45. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{s||DC|124|56-60}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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 {{s||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 ({{s||DC|124|49}}).
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />46. If genealogies are important, why does the New Testament tell Christians to avoid them?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b|1|Timothy|1|4}} and {{b||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 {{b|1|Corinthians|15|29|}}) so that the atonement of Christ may be available to all who would choose it, living or dead.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''To learn more:'' [[Biblical_condemnation_of_genealogy]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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.==
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Bible also has Jesus teach that there are some acts which ''cannot'' be forgiven (notwithstanding the blood of Christ). Jesus said:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :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. ({{b||Matthew|12|31-32}}, see also {{b||Luke|12|10}})
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''To learn more:'' [[Blood atonement]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />48. God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made. Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Genesis|3|21}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon as the stick of Ephraim]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />50. If Acts 3:20, 21 is a prophecy about the restoration of Mormonism, why didn’t Jesus return in 1830?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{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 nineth 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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)==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * ''On Colossians, see:'' [[Creation in Colossians 1:16]]
| |
| − | * ''To learn more:'' [[Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also, note a caution on uses of the word on "all" in scripture from Evangelical leader, Charles Spurgeon:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :"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|q5201}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | As a final note, the Council of ... in 451 AD provided this as part of their definition of faith:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :"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"."
| |
| − | | |
| − | As Catholic theologian Roger Haight wrote:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :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))
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Acts|10|44-47}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :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|q5301}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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}}).
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b|1|Corinthians|15|29}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | John A. Tvedtnes noted:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :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.){{ref|q5401}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''To learn more:'' [[Baptism for the dead]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b|1|Timothy|3|2}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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|q5501}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | *''To learn more'': [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]
| |
| − | *''To learn more'': [[Polygamy not Biblical]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />56. Why does the Mormon church teach that the broad way leads to the Terrestrial Heaven when Jesus taught that it leads to destruction?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b||Matthew|7|13,14}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Church does not, to our knowledge, 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 distortion of LDS doctrine.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Readers with more insight into this question are encouraged to contact FAIR.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''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||1Peter|2|24}}; {{b||Acts|16|31}}; {{b||John|1|12}}; {{b||1John|5|12,13}}; {{b||Romans|5|1}} and {{b||Romans|8|1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Most Mormons would 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==<br />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?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b||John|1|12}}, {{b||Colossians|1|27}}, and {{b||Revelation|3|20}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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 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?
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{DoYouHaveQuestions}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | =Footnotes=
| |
| − | #{{note|q0301}} {{TPJS1|start=121}}
| |
| − | #{{note|q0701}} {{Anf1|author=Apostle Peter (claimed)|article=Clementine Homilies|citation=17:16|vol=8|start=322|end=323}}
| |
| − | #{{note|q0801}} J.N. Sanders, ''A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John,'' edited and completed by B.A. Mastin (New York, Harper & Row, 1968), 147–148.
| |
| − | #{{note|q1201}} {{Ensign|author=Ezra Taft Benson|article=Joy in Christ|date=March 1986|start=3|end=4}} (emphasis added){{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20march%201986%20.htm/first%20presidency%20message%20joy%20in%20christ.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0}}
| |
| − | #{{note|q1202}} {{MD1|start=822}}
| |
| − | #{{note|q1401}} Orson Hyde, “Judgments of God on the United States, Etc.,” ''Journal of Discourses,'' reported by G.D. Watt 18 March 1855, Vol. 2 (London: Latter-Day Saint’s Book Depot, 1855), 210.
| |
| − | #{{note|q1402}} ''Ibid.''
| |
| − | #{{note|q2001}} See Lee Levine, ''The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years,'' second edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005).
| |
| − | #{{note|q2002}} See, for example, an article from the ''Jewish Encyclopedia,'' available online [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1212&letter=S&search=synagogue here].
| |
| − | #{{note|q2201}} Charles Phillips and David M. Jones, ''Aztec & Maya: Life in an Ancient Civilization'' (London: Hermes House, 2005), 65.
| |
| − | #{{note|q2901}} {{BD1|article=Elias|start=663}}{{link|url=http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/e/30 Direct jump}}
| |
| − | #{{note|q2902}} Alexander Campbell and Joshua V. Himes, ''Delusions. An Analysis of the Book of Mormon; with an Examination of Its Internal and External Evidences, and a Refutation of Its Pretences to Divine Authority'' (Boston,: Benjamin H. Greene, 1832). (16 pp)
| |
| − | #{{note|q3301}} Heber C. Kimball, "Correction, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 30 August 1857, Vol. 5 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1857), 161.
| |
| − | #{{note|q3302}} Heber C. Kimball, "Correction, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 30 August 1857, Vol. 5 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1857), 162.
| |
| − | #{{note|q5201}} Charles Spurgeon, ''Particular Redemption'' (28 February 1858).
| |
| − | #{{note|q5301}} {{TPJS1|start=199}}
| |
| − | #{{note|q5401}} {{Ensign1|author=John A. Tvedtnes|article=Proxy Baptism|date=February 1977|start=86}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1977.htm/ensign%20february%201977.htm/insights.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC7}}
| |
| − | #{{note|q5501}} Kevin L. Barney, ed., ''Footnotes to the New Testament for Latter-Day Saints: Vol. 2, the Epistles and Revelation'' (John H. Jenkins, 2007), 240a.
| |
