|
|
| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
| | 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). | | 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__
| + | ==Responses to individual questions== |
| | + | *[[/Questions 1-28|Questions 1-28]] |
| | + | *[[/Questions 29-58|Questions 29-58]] |
| | | | |
| − | ==<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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|Holy_Ghost/Divinity_without_a_body|l1=Holy Ghost: divine 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|Jesus Christ/Divinity_without_a_body|l1=Jesus Christ: divine 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}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|Template:AdamWiki|l1=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}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|D&C 84 says God not seen without priesthood?|l1=D&C 84 says God not seen without priesthood?|No man has seen God|l2=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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|God is a Spirit|Corporeality of God|l1=God is a Spirit|l2=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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|Elohim and Jehovah|l1=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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel|l1=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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|Bible basics|Biblical completeness|l2=Biblical completeness and sufficiency|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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|Joseph Smith prophesied the Second Coming to be in 1890|l1=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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|Was Jesus Christ married|l1=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|Nephi|14|3}}, {{s|2|Nephi|9|16}}, {{s|2|Nephi|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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|Book of Mormon anachronisms:Temple in New World|l1=Temple in the New World|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|Nephi|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-sacrificial 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{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}}
| |
| − | {{more|Book of Mormon anachronisms/Chariots and Wheels|l1=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}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | There is a Hebrew word <i>qalah</i> that is widely used in the Old Testament. It is translated into King James English as "assembly" or "congregation." In the Septuagint Old Testament (a 2nd-century BC translation from Hebrew into Greek that was used by all the first century Christians), the word <i>qalah</i> is translated into the Greek <i>ekklesia</i>. In Greek, <i>ekklesia</i> means "assembly." This is also the New Testament word that is translated into English as "church." So, even though the King James translators translated the Hebrew <i>qalah</i> as "assembly," it means "church." This is obviously the way Joseph Smith was inspired to translate the Hebrew word <i>qalah</i> in the Book of Mormon.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | And, as is obvious from the common use of the word <i>ekklesia</i> in the Septuagint Old Testament, there was a church long before the day of Pentecost.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==<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?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{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}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Come and sit by my side, if you love me;<br>
| |
| − | Do not hasten to bid me '''adieu'''.<br>
| |
| − | Just remember the Red River Valley<br>
| |
| − | And the cowboy who loved you so true.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Adieu is English, just like all the other words in Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon. It is pronounced "adoo" (rhymes with "true"). It appears in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, where it is defined as "an expression of kind wishes at the parting of friends," with no hint that it derives from the French. Admittedly, it was much more commonly used in Joseph Smith's day than it is now. It shows up in Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence. This is a non-issue for the Book of Mormon.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|"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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{more|Polygamy not Biblical|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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves/Pages 2|Click here for Part II (Q. 29-58)]]'''
| |
| − | {{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.
| |
| | {{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}} | | {{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}} |
| | | | |
| | [[fr:Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves]] | | [[fr: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.
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).
