Another question.

[BJRumph]

Here is what BY had to say about the subject, as he was preaching from the pulpit, and well after becoming prophet:

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken − HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non−professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of
the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the
forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a
tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over−righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming “great is the mystery of godliness,” and tell nothing.”

Journal of Discourses 1:51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852

Hope it helps, even if it is only the “speculation” of an LDS prophet (despite the occasional inference in the text that suggests BY did not think he was speculating). The emphasis is what is in the electronic copy I have of the JoD, no “tinkering” on my part, other than eliminating extra returns.

I think BY speaks for himself far better than anyone else, pro or anti LDS, could.

Caritas numquam excidit.

 

[iwonder]

BJRumph:

Here is what BY had to say about the subject, as he was preaching from the pulpit, and well after becoming prophet:

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken − HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non−professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of
the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the
forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a
tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over−righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming “great is the mystery of godliness,” and tell nothing.”

Journal of Discourses 1:51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852

Hope it helps, even if it is only the “speculation” of an LDS prophet (despite the occasional inference in the text that suggests BY did not think he was speculating). The emphasis is what is in the electronic copy I have of the JoD, no “tinkering” on my part, other than eliminating extra returns.

I think BY speaks for himself far better than anyone else, pro or anti LDS, could.

Caritas numquam excidit.

Now wait a minute, BJRumph- are you telling us now that the Mormons heavenly Father is Michael the Archangel? And they came from a celestial place and arranged all the plants and things single handledly. So who created this planet to do this on? Michael the Archangel? If so, who created Michael the Archangel? And since it was not the Holy Ghost- then that would mean the Virgin Mary had sex with St. Michael the Archangel. But he wasn’t really an angel then as he had become man or what? Now I am getting really, really confused. I thought I was starting to get a grasp of Mormonism, but now :crying: Please explain. This is soooo why I have trouble reading anything by Brigham Young or Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. It starts off with one thread, jumps without clarification to another, mixes everything up together, in defiance of science, philosophy, history, or any other recognized Christian religion, puts Christ as an afterthought into the picture, and brings God down to the insignificant. It has no theme to follow clearly, and no paragraphs end in a summary of the original main topic. So now Adam is really Michael the Angel, which I guess means that either Michael is a fallen angel or that Adam committed no sin?

 

[BJRumph]

No, actually, I am only presenting a teaching of Brigham Young, the second Prophet of the CoJCoLDS.

The actual teaching (in whole) is considered to be in error by current mormon thought (though I do know a few older families in the ward who do still hold it to be true), and is hastily refuted whenever it can be as the “speculation” or opinion of the prophet. It is also not inconsistent with what the church has in the SW (though certainly an elaboration).

My point in presenting it is, one, to answer the original question with as “official” and clear documentation as possible, but also secondly to show what the prophets are allowed to teach from the pulpit, be considered wrong, and still be hailed as a true and living prophet. Can you imagine if Benedict XVI made such a proclaimation?

Finally, it is to show the language of the supposed “speculation” of the prophets that the church sweeps under the rug as irrelevant ramblings of one of their prophets, and not “doctrine” taught by the prophet.

Ask an older (like 50’s+) mormon if this was taught to them; then ask a 20-30 something the same.

As to other, smaller points;

I was taught, and have seen taught, that yes, God had intercourse with Mary (the church takes, in general, the “Virgin” word is “Young Girl” or “maiden”, not a literal virgin); though it is often expressed as her being taken into the celestial worlds/heaven for the act, so it wasn’t nearly as sordid as it sounds. It also allayed an apocryphal fear in the early church that the “women folk” had of getting impregnated when being given the Holy Ghost after baptism as part of the confirmation ceremony. Also, they fully teach that Joseph and Mary were indeed husband and wife, and when the scriptures say “brother of Jesus”, then it is meant literally His brother, not a cousin as in the RCC.

I am not sure if the Michael = Adam part has been rejected or not. Remember, in mormon theology, angels are but the pre-mortal (and occasionally post mortal) spirits of men; not a separate created order of spiritual beings like in the RCC. In this thought, Michael is simply the spiritual, pre-mortal, name of Adam.

The arrainging things is part of the lds belief in eternal matter; God did not create, ex nihilio (SP?), as in the RCC version; but merely “arrainged” the already existing matter into the universe we know today.

Sorry to confuse. Perhaps I’ll just call it quits while I am still mostly ahead

 

[iwonder]

BJRumph:

No, actually, I am only presenting a teaching of Brigham Young, the second Prophet of the CoJCoLDS.

The actual teaching (in whole) is considered to be in error by current mormon thought (though I do know a few older families in the ward who do still hold it to be true), and is hastily refuted whenever it can be as the “speculation” or opinion of the prophet. It is also not inconsistent with what the church has in the SW (though certainly an elaboration).

My point in presenting it is, one, to answer the original question with as “official” and clear documentation as possible, but also secondly to show what the prophets are allowed to teach from the pulpit, be considered wrong, and still be hailed as a true and living prophet. Can you imagine if Benedict XVI made such a proclaimation?

Finally, it is to show the language of the supposed “speculation” of the prophets that the church sweeps under the rug as irrelevant ramblings of one of their prophets, and not “doctrine” taught by the prophet.

Ask an older (like 50’s+) mormon if this was taught to them; then ask a 20-30 something the same.

As to other, smaller points;

I was taught, and have seen taught, that yes, God had intercourse with Mary (the church takes, in general, the “Virgin” word is “Young Girl” or “maiden”, not a literal virgin); though it is often expressed as her being taken into the celestial worlds/heaven for the act, so it wasn’t nearly as sordid as it sounds. It also allayed an apocryphal fear in the early church that the “women folk” had of getting impregnated when being given the Holy Ghost after baptism as part of the confirmation ceremony. Also, they fully teach that Joseph and Mary were indeed husband and wife, and when the scriptures say “brother of Jesus”, then it is meant literally His brother, not a cousin as in the RCC.

I am not sure if the Michael = Adam part has been rejected or not. Remember, in mormon theology, angels are but the pre-mortal (and occasionally post mortal) spirits of men; not a separate created order of spiritual beings like in the RCC. In this thought, Michael is simply the spiritual, pre-mortal, name of Adam.

The arrainging things is part of the lds belief in eternal matter; God did not create, ex nihilio (SP?), as in the RCC version; but merely “arrainged” the already existing matter into the universe we know today.

Sorry to confuse. Perhaps I’ll just call it quits while I am still mostly ahead

1. they arranged the already exosting matter into the universe we know today. Okay. Do they have any ideas as to where the already existing matter came from?
2. Your point about prophets with wildly erroneous ideas being accepted as true living prophets is indeed, scary. One could promulgate any kind of irrational idea that way. Perhaps quitting while we are ahead is a good idea.

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

Looking at my husband’s Catholic Bible, it says on the front cover “The Holy Bible” inside same thing with “Douay Rheims Version”
and under those words “revised by Bishop Richard Challoner AD 1749-1752”

Wow, that was a lot of info!

So what you have is called basically called the Douay-Challoner. It is (as your Bible says) the Douay-Rheims Bible that was revised by Bishop Challoner. Also, as it says it was a direct translation from St. Jerome’s Vulgate. The Douay and the KJV are very similar. They are both considered to be relatively literal translations, meaning that they translate the words as opposed to other versions of the Bible that attempt to translate the meanings as opposed to the exact words.

Interesting piece of info - the people who translated the King James Version used the Douay Rheims to assist in translating.

Not many American Catholics use the Douay version anymore. Most use 1 of 2. Either the NAB or the RSV-CE. The RSV-CE is also considered a literal translation. The NAB tries to capture more of the meaning than the actual words.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Hi Tkdnick,
I finally wandered back to this thread, but saw your answer in my thread, so thanks for the information.

To answer iwonder and BJrumph, I know you two are trying to figure it out between you, but I can’t really follow what you are talking about. No wonder you are confused, I am totally confused by these posts. Having been a Mormon all my life, I have never heard all of these things you are talking about, except in anti-mormon literature. There are some partial truths intertwined with outright lies, which is exactly what you acuse Mormons of doing when we are trying to understand the Catholic religion.
In all my life I have never been taught any of these things in a class. As far as God having sex with the virgin thing you presented in this post,(that is absolutely untrue and blasphemus) that has been refuted so many times in this forum, that I think you just say those things to make mormons see red. Why do you do want to say those things that you know are not true?
iwonder, When you were trying to explain to me that you do not worship Mary, I told you I knew that you did not, but by the time you got through explaining you had me so confused I thought you did worship her. So maybe it is your manner of explaining things that is confusing. But, just as in your non-worship of Mary, we do not think God had sex with Mary. Can you understand the concept?
When you tell untruths about other Churches beliefs, it is just as disturbing to us as it is to you to hear untruths or misunderstandings about Catholics. I was never mad at you as you were with me, I just could not understand your postings, or where you got your information. I hope you understand now by reading the God and sex with Mary posting. It is just as offensive for you to say we believe that as it is for me to say you worship Mary. OK BJ

 

[BJRumph]

Hmm. “outright lies”?

Where? I quote directly from a sermon published in a series of documents, that while the church denies as being “official”, are still used as supporting evidence and as quotations in Preisthood manuals issued by the church. Which part are you saying is a lie?

Sure, you can claim that you have never heard of such things, and I can accept that (not knowing anything about you personally that would provide me with evidence to the contrary). But you cannot claim that I have not heard such things taught in my local ward, or have had discussions with mormons who believe it is taught.

Even if you are having a logical disconnect, that does not mean I am lying. You denied the church teaches that God was once a man, and that he was a sinner. And yet, you later affirmed that the church does indeed teach that He was a man, and later became God.

If He was a mortal such as we, and had to progress into his godhood through the Priesthood, then He was, indeed, under mormon theology, a sinner, until he attained His perfection, just as temple mormons expect themselves to do through their own progression. So, while I can agree that the church insists that God is currently “sinless”; you cannot make claim that He has always been so under mormon doctrine.

While I firmly agree that anti-mormon material is a very biased medium; and how the facts presented are often presented in a very twisted (and just as often ineffective) manner; it does not invalidate their sources when they actually do bother to use factual material. Were an anti-mormon to quote GBH from a conference issue Ensign that you happened to miss, does the fact that the only place you saw it was from an anti-mormon publication make it a lie?

Just because the anti’s are more willing to delve into what the church has taught throughout its life than you are does not immediately disqualify their findings.

I at least qualify my assertions with either reference, or point out when I am using personal experience to provide support. Sure, I was only a mormon for nine years; but my wife has the same claim of having been a mormon all her life, and has learned such doctrine herself from church. How is your claim better than mine?

It isn’t; and so if we both provide our perceptions and experiences as they are, and as asked, then those who actually wish to consider them can do so, and make up their own minds. That you have a far different experience than myself, does not invalidate my perceptions, or make them lies.

Oh, and BTW, according to my wife, the association of the RCC with the Whore of Babylon is made in the book, Mormon Doctrine. Yes, it was NOT published by the church; however it was written by a church athority. No, I do not suggest that one anti-catholic GA should condemn the church; but I do point out that this book carried (carries, as many of the mormons who believe it are still living) enormous weight in the minds of the lds membership. I know, wrong thread, but everyone here is there (MOL), and I don’t want to spend too much more time on this nonsense (looky, a polemical remark!) than I feel I have to. Enough lies for today

 

[BJRumph]

In the “For what it is Worth” column, it turns out my ecopy of Mormon Doctrine was not as well deleted as I had intended, and so I have looked up the troublesome Virgin Birth topic there.

According to MD, while affirming that the Father is the father and not the Holy Ghost, it proclaims the teaching that He physically impregnated Mary as being utter apostacy. So, from this unofficial source, it is not a regular (orhtodox) teaching, but what the RCC would call a heretical teaching.

Too bad I didn’t have the MD when it was brought up in Gospel Doctrine a couple years back, it would have proved more useful than me just grumbling to myself about those who take the gospel too physically and deny the power of God; though mainly because MD is a popular source around these parts (even if it is always prefaced with “I know this isn’t really doctrine, but it says here…”)

So, I am happy to report that it should not be considered a normal teaching of the church, but I still will not deny that it has been taught, and that I first heard (and rejected) the teaching at church, not from anti-mormon literature. Even the language used in MD to refute the idea shows that it was a subject that had been taught. I guess it is like the “Heavenly Mother” stuff that used to circulate within the church, but has been soundly stomped on by the church proper.

So, call it an example of heresy (or “apostacy” in LDS terms); therefore a “regular” mormon will not likely believe such a thing, but you just might find a few out there who do (like I apparently did). (which makes me happy, 'cause it irritated me even when I was a believing mormon).

It does not, however, deny Joseph and Mary’s relationship, only assert the virginal conception of Jesus.

 

[Casen]

BJRumph,
Regarding the book Mormon Doctrine, it was the first edition that identified the RCC as the Whore of Babylon. Other apostles in the Church urged McKonkie not to make the connection and he was reprimanded after the book was published. Later editions removed the reference. At other times some church leaders speculated that the Whore of Babylon was a reference to communism.

Other church leaders including B.H. Roberts believed that the “Whore of Babylon” or “church of the devil” as it is called in the Book of Mormon consisted of anything that was evil, untrue, and also all “combinations of wicked men.”

In a 1906 Conference address B.H. Roberts said he had been asked if the “church of the devil” referred to the Catholic Church and remarked as follows:

*I would not like to take that position… So far as the Catholic church is concerned, I believe that there is just as much truth, nay, personally I believe it has retained even more truth than other divisions of so-called Christendom; and there is just as much virtue, and I am sure there is more strength in the Roman Catholic church than there is in Protestant Christendom.

I would not like, therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the church of the devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all of the various divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom combined as such church; nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the Buddhist sects; nor the followers of Confucius; nor the followers of Mohammed; nor would I like to designate even the societies formed by deists and atheists as constituting the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context – with the chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the chapter in which it is found – then, I think, those who study it in that manner will be forced to the conclusion that the Prophet here has in mind no particular church, no particular division of Christendom, but he has in mind, as just stated, the whole empire of Satan; and perhaps the thought of the passage would be more nearly expressed if we use the term “the kingdom of evil” as constituting the church of the devil.*
(B. H. Roberts, Conference Report, April 1906, p.14, 15)

 

[tkdnick]

Casen:

In a 1906 Conference address B.H. Roberts said he had been asked if the “church of the devil” referred to the Catholic Church and remarked as follows:

I would not like to take that position… So far as the Catholic church is concerned, I believe that there is just as much truth, nay, personally I believe it has retained even more truth than other divisions of so-called Christendom; and there is just as much virtue, and I am sure there is more strength in the Roman Catholic church than there is in Protestant Christendom.

I would not like, therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the church of the devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all of the various divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom combined as such church; nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the Buddhist sects; nor the followers of Confucius; nor the followers of Mohammed; nor would I like to designate even the societies formed by deists and atheists as constituting the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context – with the chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the chapter in which it is found – then, I think, those who study it in that manner will be forced to the conclusion that the Prophet here has in mind no particular church, no particular division of Christendom, but he has in mind, as just stated, the whole empire of Satan; and perhaps the thought of the passage would be more nearly expressed if we use the term “the kingdom of evil” as constituting the church of the devil.
(B. H. Roberts, Conference Report, April 1906, p.14, 15)

But that’s just his personal speculation right?

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

But that’s just his personal speculation right?

Yes, I reckon there is no binding clarification on this matter. As I stated in another thread, the CoJCoLDS is influenced by the groups around it and those who convert to it. I also said, “The Protestant comments that say the same thing [great and abominable] (and worse) are certainly more virulent and voluminous.”

I would be surprised if you could find another non-Catholic who rivaled B. H. Roberts in his assessment of the Catholic Church at that time in American history.

Casen,

That is a great quote that I had not seen before. Thanks!

All,

My favorite article on this is by Mike Ash:

http://www.mormonfortress.com/ga1.html

Charity, TOm

 

[BJ_Colbert]

bjrumph,
I defer to you because I do not have the knowledge you have about all of these things. I do not have the time to study the anti-s and the pro’s and the history of all of these things. There is simply too much. I have enough trouble just studying the regular quad. So I know what I believe and I do not understand what you believe, but I know you have documented it, and so it must be true to you and others. I just don’t really care, I like the simplicity of the gospel and a simple belief in God, His Son and the Holy Spirit. I really don’t need to delve into all of the other things you spend so much time on. I know my Father in Heaven and he answers my prayers. I do my best to follow His commandments and serve my fellow man and be the best person I can be.
I love reading these posts and I have learned a lot about the Catholics from this, but I wish that Catholics wanted to learn about Mormons from Mormons, and not tell Mormons what they think they believe. That always confuses me, because I don’t recognize most of what the Catholics say the Mormons believe. Thanks for trying to explain to me, but I am just a dinasaur and I guess too old to digest all of this stuff. BJ

 

[LDS]

alterserver_07:

Okay, I have kinda studied the mormon religion and one question from me is,
Is it true that our God, to mormon beliefs, was a sinner like us on another planet under another god and when he died, he eventually became the god we know today?
I have seen it in reasearch and would like to hear from fromer or current mormon people if it is true.

This is a pretty complicated topic, I would answer it but it would be better to actually talk about it in person with someone who was LDS.

 

[stillsearching]

tkdnick:

But that’s just his personal speculation right?

yes, it is. His speculaton would be meaningful only for him and his own relationship with God.