57 Years Mormon

  • Thread starter Thread starter anon82300119
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lemuel said:
40.png
gazelam:
These quotes help too. None of them suggest that Mary had sexual intercourse to conceive Jesus. But they do confirm that Jesus is literal physical offspring of God the Father.
Click to expand...
Haha, I have to admit I’m not surprised that you deny the obvious. You’re being a good Mormon robot.

Mormons of my generation all understood that God and Mary has physical sex and freely accepted it. It was a regular discussion in gospel doctrine and priesthood meetings. But the ever changing gospel of Mormonism keeps things fresh. It’s fun to watch. Part of the intrigue for people like me.

I’m glad you have taken the position you did. It just shows everyone who reads here what Mormons are like. Thank you!

Cheers!
Click to expand...
I was taught the same as you many years ago, in my Mormon days.

Gazelem is still not being forthcoming about Mormon belief. In this version of Mormon belief regarding Jesus’ conception, they believe it was some kind of a divine artificial insemination. They think that is less repulsive somehow.
 
Last edited:
Lemuel said:
40.png
RebeccaJ:
Gazelem is still not being forthcoming about Mormon belief. In this version of Mormon belief regarding Jesus’ conception, they believe it was some kind of a divine artificial insemination. They think that is less repulsive somehow.
Click to expand...
I know, but he’s doing his best to defend a faith whose beliefs and doctrines are constantly changing.

Regarding artificial insemination, this was my favorite line in the quotes I gave him:

“Even though that power may be abused and may become a mere harp of pleasure to the wicked, nevertheless it is the most sacred and holy and divine function with which God has endowed man.”

The harp of pleasure to the wicked is artificial insemination???

😂😂😂😂
Click to expand...
The Mormon view of women just makes my blood boil.
 
RebeccaJ said:
The Mormon view of women just makes my blood boil
Click to expand...
You’re being over sensitive now! Just be a good submissive wife and do what your husband says. And if he chooses to have a dozen wives, just deal with it. You know what will happen if you don’t . . . 🤣
 
Last edited:
RebeccaJ said:
Gazelem: Regarding Justin Martyr, Edmund J. Fortman says the following:

On several occasions Justin coordinates the three persons, sometimes citing formulas derived from baptism and the eucharist, sometimes echoing official catechetical teaching. He worshipped the Father as Supreme in the universe; he worshipped the Logos or Son as divine but in the second place; he worshipped the Holy Spirit in the third place. But he has no real doctrine of the Trinity, for he says nothing of the relations of the three to one another and to the Godhead. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 47

Justin Martyr: I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. (“Dialogue With Trypho”, 61)
Click to expand...
If anything, my time on CAF would show anyone I’m a simple person. I had never even heard of the word “abscission” before! So, what are you trying to refute in Fortman’s statement with this chapter 61?
  1. That he didn’t sometimes citing formulas derived from baptism and the eucharist?
  2. That he didn’t sometimes echoing official catechetical teaching?
  3. That Justin didn’t worship the Father as Supreme in the universe?
  4. That Justin didn’t worship the Logos or Son as divine but in the second place?
  5. That Justin didn’t worship the Holy Spirit in the third place?
  6. That Justin does have a real doctrine of the Trinity?
  7. That Justine actually does say something of the relations of the three to one another and to the Godhead?
Thanks in advance.
 
gazelam said:
40.png
RebeccaJ:
Gazelem: Regarding Justin Martyr, Edmund J. Fortman says the following:

On several occasions Justin coordinates the three persons, sometimes citing formulas derived from baptism and the eucharist, sometimes echoing official catechetical teaching. He worshipped the Father as Supreme in the universe; he worshipped the Logos or Son as divine but in the second place; he worshipped the Holy Spirit in the third place. But he has no real doctrine of the Trinity, for he says nothing of the relations of the three to one another and to the Godhead. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 47

Justin Martyr: I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. (“Dialogue With Trypho”, 61)
Click to expand...
If anything, my time on CAF would show anyone I’m a simple person. I had never even heard of the word “abscission” before! So, what are you trying to refute in Fortman’s statement with this chapter 61?
  1. That he didn’t sometimes citing formulas derived from baptism and the eucharist?
  2. That he didn’t sometimes echoing official catechetical teaching?
  3. That Justin didn’t worship the Father as Supreme in the universe?
  4. That Justin didn’t worship the Logos or Son as divine but in the second place?
  5. That Justin didn’t worship the Holy Spirit in the third place?
  6. That Justin does have a real doctrine of the Trinity?
  7. That Justine actually does say something of the relations of the three to one another and to the Godhead?
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I responded to your assertion that Justin Martyr didn’t express Trinitarian doctrine or doctrine regarding the Sons equality with the Father. The quote I provided shows clearly, that he did.
 
RebeccaJ said:
I responded to your assertion that Justin Martyr didn’t express Trinitarian doctrine or doctrine regarding the Sons equality with the Father. The quote I provided shows clearly, that he did.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

mustbe16
 
So three are three Gods?

Two subordinate Gods and One Big Kahuna?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
jcrichton said:
…wait, they have robots now… I thought the automaton thing was only in the JW and the scientology thing… 😜😜😜
Click to expand...
Yeah. The indoctrination starts at a very young age. What’s really sad is to attend what they call Fast and Testimony meeting, which is normally the first Sunday of each month. This Sacrament meeting is an open forum where members are invited to share their testimonies as so moved by the spirit. It’s not uncommon at all to hear multiple young children utter the same rote testimony:

“I want to bear my testimony and I know this church is true and I love my mom and dad (and brothers and sisters if they have any) and I know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and I know the Book of Mormon is true in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.”

Nothing said about the Bible. Nothing said about Jesus or his love and sacrifice. Adults are generally no better. Jesus is not totally absent from testimonies but more often than not, he is a footnote.
 
Yet, no one notices that God has been replaced by man… wow!

How sad indeed!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi!

You are correct!

I apologize for diminishing your understanding and expression of God’s Divinity.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Sorry, I don’t follow links or do much reading… if you are attempting a point, excerpts are better.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
jcrichton said:
I apologize for diminishing your understanding and expression of God’s Divinity.
Click to expand...
Although they teach (or taught) that God, who is actually Michael the archangel, created Jesus by having sex with his daughter but it’s profane to refer to him as the Big Kahuna.

Makes sense to me …
 
po18guy said:
One could say that the LDS profane the One True God. Now what?
Click to expand...
Forgive them.

Matthew 5
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
 
I could be mistaken, but I think that’s what the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, not the LDS.
 
That’s what Mormons teach. Of course, it may have changed in recent years. Their gospel is always changing. Their God is always changing. Joseph Smith would not even recognize the church he founded.
 
Lemuel said:
40.png
jcrichton:
I apologize for diminishing your understanding and expression of God’s Divinity.
Click to expand...
Although they teach (or taught) that God, who is actually Michael the archangel, created Jesus by having sex with his daughter but it’s profane to refer to him as the Big Kahuna.

Makes sense to me …
Click to expand...
JS taught that Adam and the Archangel Michael are the same person. D&C 27:11.

Brigham Young taught that Adam was a resurrected and exalted human who came to form earth as Michael. Then settled with one of his wives he brought with him, as Adam andEve. After becoming mortal again by eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve started a family and thus the human race. Adam and Eve then returned to their planet, which is the throne of heaven, where Adam rules the earth as Heavenly Father.

Some later Mormon prophets and apostles accepted the Adam/God doctrine, and continued to teach it. Others viewed it as shocking and rejected it. Orson Pratt published against it, for which Young censored his paper, “The Seer”, and banned its publication. Eventually, the LDS Church took on Pratt’s counter teachings as doctrine and today they call Young’s teachings on this subject , “opinion”.

Yet interesting enough, Pratt’s writings that modern Mormons disagree with, they will cite Young’s censorship of “The Seer” as evidence that Pratt should be disregarded! One of the more humorous Mormon history conundrums, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top