How do Mormons view Our Lady?

[TexanKnight]

On the same page I also got this:

**
I’ve been reading the Journal of Discourses with a great deal of interest and pleasure, but I notice that they are not printed by the Church. Can you tell me how authoritative I should consider them to be?

Gerald E. Jones, director, LDS Institute of Religion, Berkeley, California Many queries come from students concerning these twenty-six volumes first published in England between 1853 and 1886. The original intent of their publication was to provide income for George D. Watt, their stenographer and publisher. Many Church members in England desired to read the sermons delivered by the General Authorities of the Church in Utah, and Brother Watt’s books filled that need. He obtained clearance from the First Presidency 1 June 1853. Addressed to Elder Samuel Richards, missionary printer in England, and to “the Saints abroad” this statement introduced volume one:

“Dear Brethren—It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography [shorthand], which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve, and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your cooperation in the purchase and sale of the above named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt.” (Signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards.)

The first four volumes were reported by Elder Watt, but after that other reporters are included—one a sister, Julia Young. Brother Watt reported through volume twelve, when David W. Evans became the prime reporter. He was followed by George W. Gibbs, a secretary to the First Presidency.

In considering the reliability of the Journal of Discourses, we should remember certain circumstances.

Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication.

We should remember that the times were different then. A major concern of the early Saints was physical survival. Sermons often dealt with the practical problems of the time and so may seem quaint in our day, even if much of the advice is still valid.

Doctrinally, members of the Church were growing and learning. Most adults were converts who had to unlearn and relearn many doctrines. They were learning things which our children learn in Primary and Sunday School. Remarks were frequently impromptu. Close, friendly audiences frequently invited informal discussion of varied topics. There was occasional speculation about doctrines which have since been determined unimportant or even misleading.

The general membership of the Church has progressed in knowledge of gospel principles, which is as it should be. In our organizations, we have been taught the gospel for more than one hundred years now. Because of modern revelation and because of “line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” progression, we have answers that were not yet given when the Journal of Discourses was published.

We also should be aware of priorities in our studies. It seems to me that we should first become very familiar with the four books of Scripture accepted as standard works. The words of our current living prophet are also most valuable for us in our time. The official statements of the First Presidency are standards for doctrine and practice in the Church. We should be familiar with the manuals and courses of study provided for us in our day. For further inspiration and instruction by the General Authorities, we can study general conference addresses, beginning with the most current and moving back in time.

Having taught seminary and institute classes for more than twenty years, I have tried to follow my own advice. Because I also love to read, I have read the scriptures many times, all of the general conference reports, and finally, all volumes of the Journal of Discourses.

Frankly, one of the main reasons I read the Journal of Discourses was so I could answer students’ questions about them with some knowledge of what they were about. Though I enjoyed reading them, gained some new insights, and was inspired by the spirit of the early brethren, except for the needs of students, there was no practical benefit that I could not have obtained from current conference talks with less effort, much greater clarity and more economy.

For me, the most pertinent discussion of gospel doctrines and answers to life’s problems and source of spiritual inspiration in today’s world comes from the standard works and our living prophets.**

lds.org/ensign/1978/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

Sorry…that will not fly here. You cannot claim your “prophets” were seers and revelators and spoke to God then run from the things they said because you dislike them

 

[invisible_man]

lol…it was official until the LDS church realized how awful the things their “prophets” said really were.

Sorry…that will not fly here. You cannot claim your “prophets” were seers and revelators and spoke to God then run from the things they said because you dislike them

The response that I gave was back in 1978. This was a long time ago and I am sure that you were a member of the LDS church at that time. You must have known this statement that was in their magazine. Weren’t you a Mormon missionary back in the early 1980’s? I don’t think that it is fair to claim a ‘changing doctrine’ strategy.

 

[invisible_man]

Sorry…that will not fly here. You cannot claim your “prophets” were seers and revelators and spoke to God then run from the things they said because you dislike them

I am just quoting something that was written by a LDS historian back in 1978. Mormons can also search their site and read it if they wish. It seems that it was always this way.

 

[TexanKnight]

The response that I gave was back in 1978. This was a long time ago and I am sure that you were a member of the LDS church at that time. You must have known this statement that was in their magazine. Weren’t you a Mormon missionary back in the early 1980’s? I don’t think that it is fair to claim a ‘changing doctrine’ strategy.

lol…when I was LDS, I was not aware of the horrible things said by BY and Pratt and the early “prophets”. Stop dodging.

 

[TexanKnight]

I am just quoting something that was written by a LDS historian back in 1978. Mormons can also search their site and read it if they wish. It seems that it was always this way.

You keep dodging the things said by BY,…are you now admitting he was not a prophet?

 

[iepuras]

Why do members of the Mormon threads keep quoting from the Journal of Discourses when they are not looked upon as LDS doctrine by Mormons? It seems dishonest to portray these discourses as doctrine to make a point.

LDS lesson manuals keep quoting from the Journal of Discourses. Does that mean the LDS church is dishonest about their doctrine too?

 

[RebeccaJ]

mrgloop, condolences for your loss.

I don’t have anything against the women of the RS. They serve the Mormon community well.

Typo in my previous post, exist, not exit.

I have no desire to be a Mormon, particularly as a woman. I know what it was like and you couldn’t drag me back for any reason.

There is a similar Catholic org., called the Catholic women’s league. I know more than a few women who are converts from Mormonism, who will not participate in cwl because it reminds them of RS. I haven’t pressed them as to why, particularly, I’m just saying given a choice, they choose other ministries. A Mormon woman does not have this choice. RS is required, there isn’t another option. It is required, and made so by men.

Sexism is institutional in Mormonism. Saying women are beautiful or serving you well in a time of need doesn’t address the sexism, at all.

 

[iepuras]

Why do members of the Mormon threads keep quoting from the Journal of Discourses when they are not looked upon as LDS doctrine by Mormons? It seems dishonest to portray these discourses as doctrine to make a point.

I would also add that the LDS church picks and chooses what to use from the Journal of Discources. They use what is useful for current teachings but ignore the rest. Why is it that LDS leadership can do that but ordinary people cannot?

 

[truthsilence]

How do you feel about light cotton?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am LDS. I receive the Catholic Answers emails frequently—and have been receiving them since 2010. I am grateful to see members of the Catholic Church tackle difficult, varied, and complex questions.

This post did not allow all my characters, and runs into other posts. Overall, it contains one question, one clarification, an observation and rebuttal, and a thought.

Question #1:
Among Christian religions, the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“LDS” or “Mormon”) ranks fourth in the United States, with more than 6 million members. The three specific Christian religions preceding it are Catholic (68M), Southern (16M) Baptist, and United Methodist (7M), respectively.
ncccusa.org/news/110210yearbook2011.html

Of the posts referencing specific named organizations found beneath the "Non-Catholic Religions,"I am intrigued at the volume of threads that target the LDS or “Mormon” religion. Why do so few posts specifically mention the Southern Baptist or United Methodist organizations?

Mormon PR and targeting of Catholics for proseltyzing, both will keep Catholics asking questions about Mormonism.

Also, converts to Catholicism from Mormonism have a lot more to sort out than Christians who seek full communion.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Clarification:
The posts from those who claim they were once “Mormon” or “LDS” and are now Catholic are quite alarming and quite absurd. Derogatory or inflammatory posts related to how the LDS members view Mary, or how women are treated within the LDS Church, are very much off-base. The posts were likely intentionally written to rabble-rouse, and the objective could have been accomplished (considering this post now has 10 pages of comments).

In regard to Mary, we honor her dearly. I recall an LDS play I went to in Salt Lake City titled, “Savior of the World”, that helped me realize the great burden Mary had as the mother of the Savior. I felt the Spirit of God in that play, as did the actors and most of the audience (and the orchestra in the pit). The LDS people also honor Joseph Smith, and Moses, and Ruth, and Rebekah. I honor my wife, and the role that she has chosen to be a mother to our children and a wife to me, amidst all my weaknesses. One of our past “apostles”, James E. Faust, honored Mother Teresa. What a woman she was, and what incite she had on the plague of abortion!
lds.org/liahona/1995/11/serving-the-lord-and-resisting-the-devil?lang=eng

The adult women of the LDS faith are within the ranks of the “Relief Society”, which is among the largest and oldest organizations of the world. To illustrate what women in that organization do, four of them (within their 20s and 30s) recently delivered to me and my wife, after the death of our child, a solid week of homemade crockpot meals. Think of their ages for a moment…Three of these women already have young children, two were presently pregnant, and the one without any children has a full-time job and is the President of this aforementioned organization (within a geographic boundary).

Isn’t it wonderful to see women within our distinct Churches set themselves apart, and be “lights unto the world?” Furthermore, isn’t it great to see that both your church and mine have literal organizations and structures (or “a house of order”) whereby such Christlike care can be administered?

Observation and Rebuttal:
In the beginning of this post, users attempted to associate the “Mormon view” of Mary—the mother of Christ—with sex. Rather than touch on scriptural resources, approved doctrine, and active, verifiable LDS teachings, someone presents an obscure reference from “The Seer”, published in the 1850s by Orson Pratt. Elder Pratt who WAS NOT an official president of the LDS Church. An apostle, yes…and also a man…as was Thomas.

Shame on those users, because rather than provide Mary the respect she deserves, they follow suit with how society tends to view women. The attempt to convey that Mormons dive immediately into the situations surrounding the conception of the Savior is outright inaccurate. The scriptures in the Bible related to her conception suffice.

There was probably one time in my life I ever thought of this topic, and it was not part of any lesson I had at Church, or within any manual I recall reading. I didn’t dwell on the matter too much because I know that Christ is—and will continue to be, my Savior.

There is no doubt Orson Pratt was a brilliant man for his time. Studying his life—and that of his brother Parley’s—one can see there was certainly something amazing in the water. And, within water, one might also discover impurities. Much of what Orson Pratt had written in the Seer was “struck down” by the Presidency of the Church about 10 years following its publication:

“The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.”
archive.org/stream/defenseoffaithsa02robe#page/294/mode/2up/search/and+destroyed

The original publications of The Seer have always been of great intrigue among the LDS community, but are simply not wholly accepted as doctrine.

In the words of B.H. Roberts, following the above cited paragraph, he writes:

“It would be a glorious thing for a man to so live that his life would touch the very life and Spirit of God, so that his spirit would blend with God’s Spirit, under which circumstances there would be no error in his life or in his utterances at all. That is a splendid thing to contemplate, but when you take into account human weaknesses, imperfection, prejudice, passion, ^bias, it is too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking sometimes under the influence of prejudice and pre-conceived notions, and the utterances of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and having the requisite authority, and holding the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre-conception, and stand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of God’s Spirit that shall plead, “Father, thy will and thy word be made known now to thy people through the channel thou hast appointed.” There is a wide difference between men coming with the word of God thus obtained, and their ordinary speech every day and on all kinds of occasions.”

I’m all for ignoring Pratt, but let’s not rewrite history. The Seer was supported and sanctioned by Young as a method for getting his teachings to the saints outside of Utah. The doctrinal accuracy was particular to Young teaching that Adam was God. Pratt disagreed with this teaching and published his disagreement in The Seer. There’s the point that Young nearly had Pratt excommunicated, and ordered him to atop.publishing The Seer. So, I take it you supporf Young in this matter and accept his Adam/God doctrine?

 

[LivingWaters7]

To be clear, I’m not saying that the Relief Society isn’t a Women’s Organization per se. I did see in the Handbook statements supporting those that see its relationship with the priesthood, as it isn’t an independent organization (such as it being “an auxiliary to the priesthood”, “the bishop and his counselors provide priesthood leadership”, the RS presidency works “under the direction of the bishopric”, “at the bishop’s request, she visits homes of members to evaluate welfare needs”, “the Relief Society president ensures that plans for all Relief Society meetings are approved by the bishop”, the stake RS presidency functions “under the direction of the stake presidency”, etc), however I’m not saying that it isn’t a “women’s organization”. I have no problem saying it is, as well as pointing out that it is not independent from priesthood leadership and functioning under the direction of priesthood leaders.

Yes, a distinction between Catholic women’s groups and the Relief Society is that one volunteers to join the former, while one must be part of the latter when they turn 18. There is no choice (well, you don’t have to attend, just like you don’t have to attend any of the other church meetings, but they’d probably wonder why you don’t attend, since attendance is taken, and we used to discuss in ward council those that would only attend Sacrament Meeting, then leave after). As the Handbook says:

9.1.4 “All adult women in the Church are members of Relief Society.”

 

[LivingWaters7]

Why do members of the Mormon threads keep quoting from the Journal of Discourses when they are not looked upon as LDS doctrine by Mormons? It seems dishonest to portray these discourses as doctrine to make a point.

You misunderstand. Firstly, the LDS Church has cited sermons from the Journal of Discourses in various talks, manuals, magazines, etc. For your statement to be valid, you also have to say that the LDS Church is also being dishonest.

Also, the LDS Church may say that it is not an official publication, though it did receive First Presidency approval in 1853:

contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/1913

which your Ensign article points out, though it does not specifically show where the discourses are unreliable or inaccurate (if you are aware of the unreliable talks, please point them out).

We also find this:

“The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion’s hill.’”

contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9604/rec/8

Also, it seems that quite commonly, it is attempted to dismiss the entire JoD by the wave of the hand (again, forgetting that the LDS Church itself cites sermons from it multiple times in various formats), including well after that Ensign article you linked to (and it looks like you could even purchase it through Church-owned Deseret Book). The problem is, what exactly is the JoD? It contains the teachings, from various sermons, of LDS leaders, apostles and prophets, seers, and revelators. This is what members were taught during those time periods.

I found this critical article to be good:

mrm.org/journal-of-discourses

Therefore, your point is not valid.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

This thread should be about the Virgin Mary and the LDS conception of her. It has been side whacked into something else. From what I know the LDS respect the Virgin Mary. They are not going around bashing her or being derogatory toward her.

Yes, thank you for bringing back the subject.

Fact: LDS Doctrine clearly (well not clearly because not many Mormon laity seem
to be aware of Church teaching) points out that Jesus is the LITERAL Son of God,
so the Mormon God ( IN CONTEXT OF A HUSBAND TO HIS WIFE ) begat Jesus
by having *LITERAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE *with HIS SPIRIT DAUGHTER Mary,
keeping in mind that the Mormon God HAS A BODY OF FLESH AND BONE “AS
TANGIBLE AS MAN’S.”

It is important also to remember that Mary was likely already betrothed to Joseph, yet
in order to be “lawful”, the Mormon God took Mary as a “temporary wife”, then gave her
to Joseph, and it is speculated whether the Mormon God took Mary to wife AGAIN later
or joined Mary and Joseph for “time and all eternity.”

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I have provided other quotations that say otherwise. I think that it is safe to say that there has been some speculation about it but I do not see any of it as LDS doctrine. I think that we need to be fair to the Mormons and give benefit of doubt where needed.

(Snarky Sarcastic Tone):
*Yes, because even Mormon prophets,
seers, and revelators make mistakes. *

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I have come to realize something interesting now. No matter what quotations I provide from Mormon sources about what they think of the Virgin Mary, they go unrecognized and posters do not want to believe them. I don’t know why that is.
Now you are claiming that Mormon women are second class citizens in the Mormon faith but do not realize it. I have investigated this and I have looked at a book by Joanna Brooks, a Mormon feminist. I think that Mormon women who are feminists seem to want the LDS church to give them the priesthood. This is their biggest beef. However, I don’t see them complaining about other things. Your comments make me wonder why any woman would want to be Mormon. Maybe you are using some hyperbole in your statement.

Essentially, yes, because religiously speaking, if a prophet in Mormonism says something in regards to religion, the Mormons are stuck with it. Young, Pratt, McConkie, and so many other prophets and apostles and seers and revelators etc held true without dispute that Mary was the Mormon God’s partner in that physically intimate sense. The only reason why any Mormon (whether in position of authority or not) would deny that is because the teaching is a flat out embarrassment for the Church.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/embarrassed/embarrassed.gifAlso why it isn’t taught to the laity much, leaders know how harmful the doctrine is.

As for Mormon women, I HEAR, that they are taught to be perfectly delightsome people BY REQUIREMENT, so doctrinally women in Mormonism are often silenced. And I don’t know why women in the LDS would claim to want priesthood as I believe they already serve that function in secret temples. I watched the temple rituals exposed by hidden cameras, heard “priests and priestesses,” so where’s the beef?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

and you have ignored the quotes FROM YOUR OWN LDS “PROPHETS”.
Seems you are of the new “pick and choose the teachings we like” Mormons

Get This:
“Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”:
#3 - The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

In Mormonism, Truth does not exist, but is only an opinion.

From the LDS site:
lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng
​

 

[mrgloop]

(Snarky Sarcastic Tone):
*Yes, because even Mormon prophets,
seers, and revelators make mistakes. *

Judas, I am happy to see you understand that concept. LDS prophets, apostles, General Authorities have never professed they are perfect.

In the words of Joseph Smith:
"I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.”

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=9609b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Are your religious leaders perfect? Do they ever say or write things in speculation?

It would be hard to know what your leaders have said, because the vast majority of Catholics and Catholic Reverts posting are not explaining and defending their Catholic faith, or providing sources of such beliefs, or even using this blog as a means to explain or defend Catholicism.

I’ve gone through pages of this blog, and don’t even know why Mary is referred to as “Our Lady” by the Catholics.

Disappointed,

mrgloop

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Judas, I am happy to see you understand that concept. LDS prophets, apostles, General Authorities have never professed they are perfect.
In the words of Joseph Smith:
"I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.”
lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=9609b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Are your religious leaders perfect? Do they ever say or write things in speculation?
It would be hard to know what your leaders have said, because the vast majority of Catholics and Catholic Reverts posting are not explaining and defending their Catholic faith, or providing sources of such beliefs, or even using this blog as a means to explain or defend Catholicism.
I’ve gone through pages of this blog, and don’t even know why Mary is referred to as “Our Lady” by the Catholics.
Disappointed,
mrgloop

Well the only difference between our popes and your PROPHETS is that prophets are supposed to be perfect (at least in what they say)!!! The word “prophet” indicates that whatever falls out of the mouth of the man in regards to religion is supposed to be from God. And again, there needs to be valid indication that your so-called prophets were merely speculating or giving an opinion.

Brigham Young:“The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the
births of our children; it was the result of natural
action. He partook of flesh and blood – was be-
gotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.”
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).

*Note: the late Bruce McConkie who was a member *
*of the First Council of the Seventy stated "There is *
nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begot-
*ten, conceived and born in the normal and natural *
course of events…"
(*Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).
​

Now I challenge you, at the risk of embarrassing myself, to check out the sources
and provide the context which proves your claim that Young and McConkie were *
JUST speculating or giving their opinion.

 

[TexanKnight]

Judas, I am happy to see you understand that concept. LDS prophets, apostles, General Authorities have never professed they are perfect.

Ah…but that is a cop out. They CLAIM to talk to God and receive Revelation. Shouldn’t, then, not mislead on aspects of God?

In the words of Joseph Smith:
"I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.”

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=9609b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Are your religious leaders perfect? Do they ever say or write things in speculation?

You cannot compare, unless you want them to be equal and admit js and by and the rest were not really prophets, but merely “religious leaders”. Our leaders do not claim to be seers and revelators. They do not claim that God visited them (even in 9 versions) they do not claim to walk the halls with Jesus. They do not claim to receive public revelation and that they are THE prophet of God. So stop, please, with the red herring comparison. If you are saying you can’t your alleged prophets, I agree.

It would be hard to know what your leaders have said, because the vast majority of Catholics and Catholic Reverts posting are not explaining and defending their Catholic faith, or providing sources of such beliefs, or even using this blog as a means to explain or defend Catholicism.

No, we do not need to defend because none of our leaders claim to be THE prophet of God who is a seer and relevator.

Disappointed,

I do not blame you. I was disappointed, too, to learn the lds “prophets” could not be trusted.