Madder Than Hornets

This is from a news story found here

Bob Betts, Concerned Christians’ office manager, said the DVD contrasts the teachings of Jesus Christ with those of Joseph Smith. He said about two dozen southeast Valley residents upset by the DVD called the ministry’s office Monday morning to complain.

He said about 100 volunteers, mostly from churches, distributed the DVD but another 35,000 were not distributed because of a lack of manpower.

“The Mormons are madder than hornets,” Betts said.

This is the exact reason I don’t like this strategy. I don’t know that it’s really effective missionary work to make your target audience madder than hornets.

There are times to stand up against falsehood and we should expect our opponents to be angry when we do so. But if we are seeking to convert our opponents, intentionally making them angry with our first move seems foolish whether we are speaking of LDS or not.

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “Madder Than Hornets

  1. Just reafirms to me that the Church is true… You don’t see any ‘Anti-Evangelical’ or ‘Anti-Atheist’ DVDs being churned out…

    Especially when they rely on twists of truth and outright lies to try to make their points… really sad is what it is…

    CONFERENCE!! WOO HOO! I just love it that Jesus still speaks to us in these latter-days.. :oD Makes me happy all over.

  2. Jesus isn’t speaking; the General Authorities are speaking. They aren;t claiming to be speaking prophecy. You’ll never hear a “thus sayeth the Lord.”

    What we have is prophets that do not prophecy, ever since Joseph Smith was martyred.

  3. For those who are interested, the good folks at FAIR have what looks like a point by point explanation of this DVD. They were probably able to do this quickly because there does not seem to be anything new.

    The link to the FAIR explanations is here.

    Also, there are subtle ways that God can direct what his leaders say without giving worldwide prophetic revelation. It makes a lot of sense that the first prophet of a dispensation would receive the bulk of the doctrinal revelation.

  4. That explanation is problematic at best. Certainly that’s not how the leaders of the church are portrayed in the church.

    And I don;t necessarily grant you your point that the first prophet of a dispensation would necessarily receive the bulk of the revelation. Is there real precedent for that? It doesn’t seem to be the way things happened in the Old Testament, or in the New Testament either. Or in the Book of Mormon.

  5. Well, I disagree. I believe that is exactly how leaders are portrayed in the church.

    I am not really an expert on dispensations, it just makes sense to me. Joseph Smith had to restore the church from scratch. The bulk of the doctrine needed to be restored to get things started.

    Let’s see. Adam? I think one could make a case that he walked and talked with God more that subsequent prophets of his day.

    Abraham? Yeah, I would bet he got more than Isaac or Jacob. Maybe not Joseph though.

    Christ as a dispensation head. Enough said.

    These are mainly just perspectives and general observations though, not the results of any scholarship.

  6. Okay, assuming dispensationalism is even a true doctrine, it does look like the dispensation heads got a lot of revelation.

    However, I don’t see the LDS church as “Joseph Smith got a lot, and the other prophets have gotten less.” Joseph Smith got a lot, and the other prophets have barely gotten any.

    Sure there are always hints and things that something is revelation, but that’s not the way Joseph SMith did it and that’s not the way the Prophets of old did it either.

    What have we got since Joseph Smith? Brigham Young’s marching orders, a dream that Joseph F. Smith had, and two policy statements. It’s a little disappointing coming from guys who are supposed to be prophets like in ancient times.

    The apostles got tons of revelation after Jesus. None of the prophets from Isaiah to Malachi were dispensation heads. I just don’t see it.

  7. I must join this interesting subject. I too am not an expert on dispensations. However, I do enjoy the bible. The apostles received many important truths, however, one could suppose that all they were teaching was given to them by Christ when he was here on the earth, thus they were merely teaching what they had received from Christ.
    Kullervo said (skeptically):
    What have we got since Joseph Smith? That statement is actually an appeal to ignorance. One could superficially examine all the points of the Gospel and attempt to justify them with biblical scripture. However, revelation is not always some new and amazing commandment, nor is it a new spiritual teaching. This is clearly demonstrated in the Old Testament, no new changes were given to the Law of Moses from the book of Leviticus to the beginning of the New Testament. If you read with care, you will notice that all the ‘new teachings’ from prophets such as Jeremiah are merely adapted reiterations, and the many of the ‘new prophecies’ are merely reiterations from previous like prophecies.
    Furthermore, another argument posed to the obvious skeptical decree that you have raised is as follows. If this is the last dispensations, then all necessary teachings are present for the final gathering of Gods followers. Therefore, no changes would be necessary to the present gospel, but rather new and like reiterations, prophetic clarification and explication, for the end that men can understand an apply principles of God to their lives and avoid the ever present temptations of Satan before the end.
    Furthermore, you are ignoring situations of prophetic fulfillment raised by many LDS prophets since Brigham young. Many have Prophets have prophesied things according to the lives of members of the church, the growth of the church, the missionary services in many countries that were never to allow such work but now are according to previous prophesy, the establishment of the temple of Nauvoo again in its place, the progress and growth experienced by the church, and the prophesies of blessing by obedience (i.e. President Grant’s prophesy of keeping laws of tithing, The current stance of obscenity etc.).
    Kullervo, just to let you know; cataclysmic teaching and Nostradaums-type statements are not necessarily what defines the whole of Prophesy.
    Best,
    john

  8. Kullervo,
    Not really. Your version ‘thus sayeth the lord’ is a ‘def dodge’ any prophet that is representing the lord as his voice dose not need to say “thus saith the lord.” Many prophecies have been made with out your linguistic phrase of “thus sayeth the lord.” Example is found in many parts of the bible specially the book of revelations.
    Best,
    John

  9. John, based on what you said, is Adam God the Father? Or not?

    Brother Brigham said, as prophet: Adam is God the Father, and this is a true and necessary doctrine. (paraphrased from the Journal of Discourses).

    Pres. Kimball said, as prophet: Adam is NOT God the Father, and if you say that he is, you’re being heretical.

    What do you do with contradictions like that from the prophets? I mean, if Adam is God, fine. If he’s not, fine. But he can’t be both God and not God. That doesn’t make sense.

    Also, what do you do when the Church teaches that sometimes polygamy is okay (a man having multiple wives), when it is approved of by God. But the Church teaches that polyandry is NOT okay (a woman having multiple husbands). This is emphasized with the fact that a woman can only marry one man in the temple, even if her first husband dies, etc.

    BUT… in the early days of the church, women had multiple husbands. Don’t believe me? Look at church records of who is married to whom. If you look at some of Joseph Smith’s wives, you can see who they were married to, and when, and they were sealed to Joseph while being married (and sometimes sealed) to other men.

    How does that work?

  10. Again, john, you’re splitting hairs and being unreasonably literal for the sake of argument. It’s not helpful or enlightening.

    Prophecy means speaking the Lord’s revealed message as authorized. joseph Smith received specific revelations from the Lord, and he wrote them down as received. So did John the Revelator on Patmos. So did the prophets of the Old Testament.

    Since Joseph Smith, there has been little if any Revelation (by which I mean a specific revelation given by the Lord). Sure, there have been instances where Mormons believe their leaders have been inspired, but that’s certainly not the same thing. I know you’ll probably argue that with me too, but give it a break. There’s a pretty big substantial difference separating full-on messages from the Lord and more-or less nebulous inspired statements. At a minimum, Mormons believe that inspiration can come to everyone, so if a prophet is merely inspired, he’s not really receiving anything that anyone else couldn’t receive.

    In any case, there’s certainly nothing coming out of the mouths of the church’s latter-day leaders that would lead me to say that “Jesus speaks in our day.”

  11. Katey,
    Well, I am not going to point out you erroneous dodges. However, I will commence to answer your points.
    1. Adam is as we know, the Father of all living!
    (Teachings of Brigham young Church archives Vol2 pg. 32)
    -It is true that many people were confused about this teaching; thus, Kimball fulfilled his responsibilities (as those in prophets in the past) and reiterated, and clarified that doctrine.
    2. Humm…polyandry. Show me that doctrine in the bible. The Old Testament supports the view of polygamy, but not polyandry. Thus, it isn’t a contradiction. Perhaps, for you, it appears as a contradiction, however, polyandry isn’t biblically or gospel supported at all…so it doesn’t seem to present a contradiction.

    The lord said to Job that he commands and acts and that no questioning should be made in accordance to his wills, however, let me commence to show you a couple of contradictions that we commonly hold as true.
    1. The principle of the trinity (go to my web page and see it)
    2. Christ advocated marriage because it is required to be ‘one’ before the lord, when paul condemned it.
    3. What about female pastors? The bible says in 1cor 15:34 the contrary….
    4. What about the contradictions and changes from the original law, of Moses to the ordinances of the book of judges.
    5. Or the obvious tabernacle changes that are contradictory to the ordinances of the temple of Solomon, even when the lord told the Levites that it would never change? —Just to name a few off the top of my head.
    You see, many times bias, misinformed, and confused statements result in assumptions that make one belve the possiblity of a ‘contridiction,’ this applies to many things and not just the current subject of discussion.
    Best,
    john

  12. Kuellervo,
    You said: “full-on messages from the Lord and more-or less nebulous inspired statements. At a minimum, Mormons believe that inspiration can come to everyone, so if a prophet is merely inspired, he’s not really receiving anything that anyone else couldn’t receive.”
    lets examine that:
    1. Revelation can come to anyone in reguard to their life, yet the diffrence is that when a prophet recives knowledge about something that effects the church or the doctrines of the church, then it is revelation.
    2. Your statement of full-on messages is quite vauge. I thight that the lord spoke by a still small voice to the prophets of old, and that many times his teachings we so simple and in those times insignificat that the children of isreal feel into error over small things? So, we know that by small things and upon lines of knowledge the lord causes great and almost unimaginable results (just like the current growth of the church a prophesy by president hinckley). So, you are splitting hairs… you cant say that “more-or less nebulous inspired” cant be “more-or less nebulous faith testing revelation.”
    Thank you,
    John

  13. Here is some logic:
    If a prophet speaks for the church, then his words are prophetic.
    The prophet speaks for the church.
    Thus, his words, no matter how insignificant, are prophetic
    Now you can attempt to attack the soundness of my premise, however, this argument is valid. I know that you would find it difficult to disprove the premises, so like you said…“just give it a break.”
    John

  14. Oh, and Brigham Young said this:

    “He [Adam] is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.”

    and

    “Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”

    and

    “Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God, that will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world hold derision. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism from [sic.] the dead instead Joseph Smith there are men around me who would have ridiculed the idea until dooms day. But they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb ass.”

    which lead one to believe that when he said Adam was God… he meant Adam was God…not just our earthly great…great grandpa.

  15. Ah very witty of you dando, I actually thought that the example of Zina would occur, and I was ready. In that article and many published by Tim W. Jenson (a well know historian) Said that it is inclusively true that God provided a test, that must have been equal if not more difficult that that of Abraham” (Gospel Explanations, DMC 1989 Pg. 105) We know that the lord has commanded things that have never been considered doctrine, I know that it isn’t biblical or previously supported, however, there are no direct commandments against what happened to Zina, thus, one could conclude it was a test of faith or will.
    Thank you,
    John
    PS. I can show you a plethora of incidents where such things have occurred in almost every religion that has been on this earth. We cannot rule out possible test, errors, or other difficult explanations.

  16. yes…very good and of which in the archives he clarifyed as the God of all living in the flesh…
    Nice,
    John

  17. Look at this statment.
    “They will circulate falsehoods to destroy your reputation, and also will seek to take your life”
    –Angel Moroni to Joseph Smith
    It is quite a intresting to think that your words only support and testify the truth of moroni’s words to joseph smith. Especially, when the LDS church dose not readly attack other religion’s beleifs or practices.
    It really is such a intresting thing.
    best,
    John
    Dando, you, along with an almost incalculable number, seem to be working to bring about prophecy.

  18. John, I’m so very confused by your post. What falsehoods am I circulating about Joseph Smith? I speak very little about the life and character of Joseph Smith. If I have said anything untrue about him, please direct me to my comments so that I can retract and correct them. I most certainly do not want to be spreading falsehood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s