![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 />12. If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin?) |
(→<br />27. If polygamy was a provision for increasing population rapidly, why did God give Adam only one wife?) |
||
Line 361: | Line 361: | ||
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. | 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 | + | 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.== | ==<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.== |
|
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.
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:
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:
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).
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."[1]
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 #5 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. 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 superceded (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.
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 virgin (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
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:
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:
The actual content of Joseph's prophecy does not occur until the next verse:
Without a doubt, that prophecy came true. The Lord did not return to the earth for His Second Coming before that time.
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
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 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 accordions—is described as metaphorical by LDS scriptures: "as a lake of fire and brimstone" (2 Nephi 9꞉16; Mosiah 3꞉27; Alma 12꞉17).
Scripture reference: Luke 23:43 and 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" (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.
Scripture reference: 1 Kings 5:13-18 and 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.
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.
A valid internal geography of the Book of Mormon has been constructed, in both the Old and New worlds. This has led to the identification of Nahom, and several other Old World sites.
Part(s) of this issue are addressed in a FairMormon video segment. Click here to see video clips on other topics.
Old World | New World |
---|---|
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 Illiad scripture.
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
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.[8] Other Jewish scholars believe that synagogues date back to the Exodus, during the time of Moses.[9]
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.
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.[10]
Scripture reference: 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.
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 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
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 turned his heart away from the Lord.
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.
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 (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.
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, Matthew 27꞉47-49, Romans 11꞉2, 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 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.[11] And, the angel Gabriel applied the "spirit of Elias" to John even prior to his birth. (See 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:
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.
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
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. 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 paradasiacal 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?
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."[13] 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."[14]
This was not prophecy.
Other reference: Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th Ed.
Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were consistent in 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.
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 deal.
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 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.
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.
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, repentence, 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 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
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, 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.
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 his family to "have place therein" "forever and ever."
Leaders of the Church constantly encouraged members in Nauvoo to live up to this commandment. Due to a lack of funds, workmen, and materials, the Saints eventually focused on the command to build the Nauvoo Temple (see DC 124꞉55.)
God may issue commands, but such commands are not always obeyed. And, God may alter commands if the free agent choices of enemies alter the situation, as the same section of the D&C could tell the critics, if they read the entirety (DC 124꞉49).
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 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.
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.
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." (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.
Revelation uses apocalyptic symbolism. Attempting to read it literally and chronologically is rife with difficulties. The critics' assertions about 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.
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.
Also, note a caution on uses of the word on "all" in scripture from Evangelical leader, Charles Spurgeon:
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:
As Catholic theologian Roger Haight wrote:
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.
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.'"[18]
Scripture reference: 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.
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 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?
|
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