![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.
(→<br />45. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever?) |
(→<br />46. If genealogies are important, why does the New Testament tell Christians to avoid them?) |
||
Line 439: | Line 439: | ||
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}}). | 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}} | '''Scripture reference:''' {{b|1|Timothy|1|4}} and {{b||Titus|3|9}} | ||
Line 445: | Line 445: | ||
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. | 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. | + | 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]] | ''To learn more:'' [[Biblical_condemnation_of_genealogy]] |
|
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.
Scripture reference: Acts 5:3-4
Having a body is necessary for a fullness of joy (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, the question is begged how Christ's atonement could be efficacious to those who were born, lived, and died prior to His crucifixion. The fact that it was 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.
Scripture reference: Matthew 1:23 and Hebrews 10:5
Having a body is necessary for a fullness of joy (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, the question is begged how Christ's atonement could be efficacious to those who were born, lived, and died prior to His crucifixion. The fact that it was 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.
Scripture reference: 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 (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" (TPJS 121).
Scripture reference: Isaiah 44:8
Other reference: Journal of Discourses Vol. 1, pg. 123
Critics often misunderstand the doctrine of 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 #4 below.
Scripture reference: Isaiah 43:10
Critics often misunderstand the doctrine of 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 #3 above.
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:
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.
When DC 84꞉21-22 is analyzed in context, it is apparent that the critics have misread LDS scripture. The pertinent passage says:
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" (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:
Scripture reference: 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 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:
Thus, the critics misrepresent this Bible verse to attack the LDS.
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.
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.
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.
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 virigin (1 Nephi 11꞉15-21). As the Church responded to this question posed by Fox News:
Ezra Taft Benson taught:
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:
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.
Other reference: History of the Church, Vol. 2 page 182
Scripture reference: 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:
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:
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 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.
Scripture reference: 1 Ne 14꞉3, 2 Ne 9꞉16, 2 Ne 28꞉21-23, Mosiah 3꞉25, Alma 34꞉35, Helaman 6꞉28, and Helaman 3꞉25,26
Scripture reference: Luke 23:43 and Alma 40꞉12,16
Scripture reference: 1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Ne 5꞉15-17
Scripture reference: DC 132
Other reference: History of the Church Vol. 6, page 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, page 324
Joseph had two difficulties:
Extensive futher information: Lengthy paper on history of plural marriage
Scripture reference: 2 Ne 26꞉26
Jewish scholars believe that synagogues date back to the Exodus, during the time of Moses.Template:Qref If true, then it is entirely reasonable that Lehi would have known about synagogues.
Scripture reference: II 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.
Once again, the critics' information is wrong and misleading.
Scripture reference: 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.[3]
Scripture reference: 1 Ne 4꞉26
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?
Scripture reference: 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 found in dictionaries and English works of Joseph Smith's day frequently. It even occured in Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence. The critics are straining to find fault.
Additional information: "Adieu" in the Book of Mormon
It is true that Solomon was condemned for some of his marriage practices. This problem was mentioned in Deuteronomy:
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:
Solomon's problem is described:
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 turn his heart away from the Lord.
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 othe prophets have had to do.
D&C 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 (John 20:19) and suddenly vanish out of sight (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.
Scripture reference: Moroni 8꞉8
Children are not baptized to "wash away sins." They are baptized to
Scripture reference: P of GP Moses 3:14 and DC 116-117; Genesis 2:8-15
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):
It is clear that Brigham was making several points which the critics ignore:
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.
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."[4] 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."[5]
This was not prophecy.
Other reference: Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th Ed.
Scripture reference: Luke 23:44 and 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.
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:
Why do critics attack the Church for a practice that is clearly Biblical?
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.
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 Mormon 9꞉32). It is no surprise that Egyptians or Jews have no script called "reformed Egyptian," as this was a Nephite term.
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 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.)
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, here and 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 #4, #5, #8, #16, #43, #46, #54, #55.
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.
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, aiding our 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.
Scripture reference: 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 has 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).
Scripture reference: 1 Timothy 1:4 and 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.
To learn more: Biblical_condemnation_of_genealogy
The Bible also has Jesus teach that there are some acts which cannot be forgiven (notwithstanding the blood of Christ). Jesus said:
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
Scripture reference: Genesis 3:21
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.
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 -- 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.
Scripture reference: 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:
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).
Scripture reference: 1 Corinthians 15:29
John A. Tvedtnes noted:
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
Scripture reference: 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 Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and even 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. I 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.'" (Kevin L. Barney, ed., Footnotes to the New Testament for Latter-Day Saints: Vol. 2, the Epistles and Revelation (John H. Jenkins, 2007), 240a.)
Scripture reference: Matthew 7:13,14
Scripture reference: John 10:9; 1Corinthians 1:18; Ephesians 2:8-10; Colossians 1:12-14; Romans 4:8; 1Peter 2:24; Acts 16:31; John 1:12; 1John 5:12,13; Romans 5:1 and 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.
Scripture reference: John 1:12, Colossians 1:27, and Revelation 3:20
Yes, Mormons are and have—even in the face of 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?
|
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