How do the Mormons do it?

[ParkerD]

What is CFR?

Provide the LDS Canon.

Simple question. Yes or No. Was the answer I was given right or wrong. Just clear the air for me and I will call the local LDS church again.

CopticChristian,

The answer to your question should have been “no”. If you received a different answer, then the answer you received was wrong.

 

[Tony888]

What is CFR?

Provide the LDS Canon.

Simple question. Yes or No. Was the answer I was given right or wrong. Just clear the air for me and I will call the local LDS church again.

CFR = Call For Reference. - Support what you say is doctrine
If you can’t, then you shouldn’t claim it is LDS doctrine, it smacks of “bearing false witness”

Obviously, I don’t think it is doctrine.

 

[CopticChristian]

CFR = Call For Reference.
Support what you say is doctrine
If you can’t, then you shouldn’t claim it is LDS doctrine, it smacks of “bearing false witness”

It is difficult to say what is LDS doctrine as it changes. It is difficult to assess since most of what Mormons believe as Doctrine as I understand it are found in Doctrine and Covenant of Joseph Smith. Blacks could not be priests, now they can. Polygamy once accepted is not.

I ask you to tell me how it is that Mormons believe that Jesus was brought into this world.

Relations or no relations…

Holy Spirit as Spirit or Holy Spirit with body.

Explain what it is you believe and have been taught.

 

[Tony888]

It is difficult to say what is LDS doctrine as it changes. It is difficult to assess since most of what Mormons believe as Doctrine as I understand it are found in Doctrine and Covenant of Joseph Smith. Blacks could not be priests, now they can. Polygamy once accepted is not.

I ask you to tell me how it is that Mormons believe that Jesus was brought into this world.

Relations or no relations…

Holy Spirit as Spirit or Holy Spirit with body.

Explain what it is you believe and have been taught.

Stop equivocationg and deflecting! (you’ve just introduced several red herrings to deflect)

I urge you to do more homwork before you make assertations and profess knowledge of another faith
All our cannon of scripture is available on LDS.ORG for you to search and reference.

 

[CopticChristian]

Stop equivocationg and deflecting! (you’ve just introduced several red herrings to deflect)

I urge you to do more homwork before you make assertations and profess knowledge of another faith
All our cannon of scripture is available on LDS.ORG for you to search and reference.

Your approach is interesting. You may want to read all the postings concerning your misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on this site. These have been met with explanation and other information for clarity. In my experience someone that cannot clearly answer a question has no answer. I have no obligation to go looking for something. If you believe I misunderstand then do unto others as you have them do unto you. This is my Christ. What does yours teach?

 

[Telstar]

It is certainly not secret: everyone is welcome to attend, but God has some constraints on who He allows into His holy house. Just the same as if you visited my house, I would expect you to refrain from swearing, smoking, dress appropriately (modestly) and not bring anything innapropriate with you: and if I was not confident that you would abide by these rules, I would not invite you in.
Just the same, The Lord wants to be confident that we will show the proper respect and have the correct attitude to visit His house (not really any different to the fact that even heaven has what could be described as ‘entry requirements’, but all are still welcome and invited to come).

If people can’t just walk in off the street, it’s secret. It’s definitely not the same circumstance as someone visiting your own house, that’s for sure. If it’s supposed to be a house of God, it should always be open to all. Every Catholic Church in the world is open for all to visit, with no questions asked and no ‘minimum requirements’ that prove that you’re worthy to do so. God welcomes all into His house, but most of all He welcomes those lost sheep that are wandering around, searching for Him. Jesus didn’t come for the sole benefit of ‘saints’, He came for sinners. Saints aren’t the ones that need Him most. God doesn’t put any constraints on anyone who is willing to search for Him.

I attended an RC school, as pointed out previously, and had no option but to attend. But because I was there anyway, I attended with an interest to see how things differed and how it worked, because the difference between different Christian practises is something that genuinely interests me. It’s not like I attended with a notepad to make notes on everything to be able to denounce it.

It’s too bad you never paid enough attention to what it really meant.

Especially on my iPad it’s a nightmare the way I like to split up quotes to respond more clearly (I hope ). Copy and paste are nowhere near as simple as just ‘ctrl-C’.

The solution to that problem would be to get yourself a real computer.

Believe me, I understand the amazing feelings, perspective and depth of understanding conveyed by The Holy Ghost. I have experienced it time and time again in my life when studying the scriptures, when sincerely praying, when ordaining a friend to office in the priesthood, when baptising my sister, when I was married in the temple…

You can’t even begin to understand the immense difference, since you’ve never experienced it. The Holy Eucharist is much more profound than you can ever imagine. Unless you do experience it, you will always be missing the “the best part” that Mary (as in Martha & Mary) experienced, just sitting at Jesus’ feet.

 

[Jay53]

Looks like He promised that the spirit would be with those faithful individuals; I don’t see Him promising anything regarding His church?

Those faithful individuals WERE His Church!! That’s the point you seem to be missing.

 

[JHow]

CFR = Call For Reference. - Support what you say is doctrine

Obviously, I don’t think it is doctrine.

This comes up occassionally, but the most recent source of this has got to be Bruce McKonkie and his work titled, oddly enough, “Mormon Doctrine”:

Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.

Young, Kimball, Pratt all made similar statements, emphasizing the “natural” character of “begotten”. The comments go beyond emphasizing paternity and speak to the manner of conception.

 

[CopticChristian]

This comes up occassionally, but the most recent source of this has got to be Bruce McKonkie and his work titled, oddly enough, “Mormon Doctrine”:

Young, Kimball, Pratt all made similar statements, emphasizing the “natural” character of “begotten”. The comments go beyond emphasizing paternity and speak to the manner of conception.

So the question to the LDS on this site that object is to answer simple questions.

Do the above statements ring true?

How was Jesus brought into the world?
With a body/Mary?
With a Spirit/Mary?
With a body/Spirit…only called Spirit to deny the Body aspect/Mary…in other words give us milk rather than meat…as is taught to the missionaries?

Just an answer would do.

 

[zaffiroborant]

It is certainly not secret: everyone is welcome to attend,

Secret:
1.done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others

2.kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged:

Of course it’s secret, and you all take secret to a whole new level, forbidding even the initiated or privileged to discuss it.

It’s not like I attended with a notepad to make notes on everything to be able to denounce it.

Apparently no notes are needed to mock someone’s beliefs.

 

[Telstar]

So while your canon is closed, you still consider many other writings to be of benefit, and effectively treat them as scripture: but you don’t consider your ‘tradition’ to be canon despite, apparently, treating it as such? There are many quotes given on here that, I assume, are not canonical or part of the ‘tradition’ as written and stored by the church, but which are clearly considered beneficial for edification, for teaching and for better understanding Jesus Christ and your faith in Him?
This sounds very much like our view also, in that we seek out all good things, because anything that is good comes from God; Satan being incapable of producing anything fruitful or that is designed to bring men joy. The difference being that however good and true, and regardless of its source you will not include it into either your canon, or tradition; while when we have something that is of great worth to enlighten the mind and to encourage people to come into Christ, we are happy to include that into what we consider scripture.

Just a slight clarification, many of our Doctrines and Dogma that have been passed down from the very beginning, come directly from Sacred Tradition. Even though many of them do not necessarily appear in Scripture, those are still part of our canon. Like I said, the Bible is composed of the most important writings of the Apostles, but there are many, many more that just didn’t make it in. Of course, there are many other writings that are beneficial to the faithful, not just from that period of time, but those that were written by holy men and women over the entire history of the Church. They were also inspired by the Holy Spirit, but none of those can ever be considered as ‘scripture’ or doctrine.

Scripture, particularly the Gospels and the whole New Testament, only comes directly from eye-witnesses that were there when those events took place. Even if more of those writings of the Apostles surfaced from archeological research, they would never be considered to be scripture, nor would they influence any real changes in Doctrine or Dogma, even though they might shed new light on them. It would be impossible to verify them as authentic, for one thing, and there is no way to ever change scripture since the Bible was originally compiled. It’s sufficient, in and of itself, to teach the basics of what we need to know about the life of Jesus. That’s its purpose. It’s just an outline, like an introductory course for anyone that wishes to learn about God. Whatever the Holy Spirit wanted to be included in it, is already there. God doesn’t change His mind, no matter what happens down the road. Sacred Tradition is what fills in all of the rest of the details that have been revealed to the Church by the power of the Holy Ghost, since that time. It’s never stopped happening, and never will.

Still no…
An angel is any messenger sent from heaven: these may be spirits prior to entering a mortal existence; spirits following their mortal death, but prior to ressurection; or (more usually) resurrected beings - spirit and body together and perfected (physically). All of these are spirit children of God, just as each and every one of us are: ‘spirit child’ doesn’t imply some kind of immaturity, just that we are His offspring.

There are no ‘resurrected beings’, nor those with bodies in Heaven, except Jesus and Mary (possibly Elijah). They’re not angels, although they frequently visit people on the earth to give them messages. (The general resurrection won’t happen until the end of time. There are very few exceptions to that rule.) Angels are a totally separate kind of life form than either man, or God. They were created before man and are extremely intelligent. I’m not a ‘spirit child’ of God. But, I am an adopted daughter that He created, body & soul, spontaneously… out of His love.

Wrong again: we affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Lord and God of the Old Testament.

If you really want to learn of the fullness of Jesus Christ, His premortal, mortal and ante mortal missions: I would very much reccomend reading ‘Jesus The Christ’ it’s quite comprehensive.

If that were really true, then the whole story of the preexistence would have to be false. Jesus is not our ‘bother’, or Satan’s. He never was. He is and always was God. We are nothing at all like Him, in essence. The only way we become anything like Him is through receiving the Holy Eucharist. That’s how we partake in His Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity. If you never receive Him in that way, then you can never become a part of Him.

Thanks for the links, but I’m really not that interested in a comprehensive breakdown of LDS beliefs. It really doesn’t matter what you believe about any of that stuff. It’s still blasphemous from a Catholic perspective, and in the eyes of God. I prefer reading the Bible and books about Catholic spirituality. I have a lot of them on my bookshelf, collecting dust atm, since I’ve been spending a lot of time (probably too much) on this forum, lately. Maybe you should pick up “The Imitation of Christ”, or “The Story of a Soul” (those 2 are a bit deep, though), or maybe some biographies of Catholic Saints, like Padré Pio, to learn a little about our spirituality.

He is telling that that searching the scriptures is important, but that through them alone nobody attains eternal life. That the purpose of the scriptures is to teach people about Jesus Christ and encourage them to learn of Him and come unto Him for salvation.

Jesus was telling them that even though they diligently searched scripture, they completely missed its true meaning due to their own pride, that caused them to not comprehend the true meaning of the message it contained. It was their loss for believing that they already ‘knew it all’ better than anyone else, even though they didn’t know anything at all.

 

[Tony888]

Your approach is interesting. You may want to read all the postings concerning your misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on this site. These have been met with explanation and other information for clarity. In my experience someone that cannot clearly answer a question has no answer. I have no obligation to go looking for something. If you believe I misunderstand then do unto others as you have them do unto you. This is my Christ. What does yours teach?

I’ll repeat:

Please provide a reference for your claim that the LDS doctrine is “God came down from heaven to copulate with Mary to produce Jesus.” If you are not going to ‘back it up’ then don’t make the claims. I personally find your approach insulting, especially the deflection when you are called on BS.

In seperate threads I’m happy to discuss my supposed “misunderstanding of Catholic teaching” you attribute to me, just don’t deflect here with that ruse.

 

[JHow]

I’ll repeat: Please provide a reference for your claim …

How about McKonkie? How do you read his statement (see above)? I know how my children were begotten. What am I missing here?

 

[pablope]

I’ll repeat:

Please provide a reference for your claim that the LDS doctrine is “God came down from heaven to copulate with Mary to produce Jesus.” If you are not going to ‘back it up’ then don’t make the claims. I personally find your approach insulting, especially the deflection when you are called on BS.

In seperate threads I’m happy to discuss my supposed “misunderstanding of Catholic teaching” you attribute to me, just don’t deflect here with that ruse.

Tony…coptic called an LDS church and was given an answer, which you believe is wrong. On the other hand, why should we believe that the answer is wrong? not in accordance with LDS doctrine? After all, there was a pause…so obviously someone went to research the answer.

As happens here, we catholics provide link, references to the CCC, when needed for the CC teachings.

If you think the answer given is wrong…then why don’t you provide the official document from the LDS as what is actually taught?

If the LDS is truly a restoration of the original church…then mistakes like that should not happen…right? no? For it demonstrates what others have said here…LD doctrine is a moving goal post.

 

[Tony888]

How about McKonkie? How do you read his statement (see above)? I know how my children were begotten. What am I missing here?

What you are missing is that statement contradicts LDS doctrine

LDS believe in the virgin birth, clearly stated in both Bible and BoM
**The LDS church has no explanation for the ‘mystery’ of how Jesus was conceived **

 

[JHow]

What you are missing is that statement contradicts LDS doctrine

LDS believe in the virgin birth, clearly stated in both Bible and BoM
**The LDS church has no explanation for the ‘mystery’ of how Jesus was conceived **

So, McKonkie is just plain wrong?

 

[Tony888]

Tony…coptic called an LDS church and was given an answer, which you believe is wrong. On the other hand, why should we believe that the answer is wrong? not in accordance with LDS doctrine? After all, there was a pause…so obviously someone went to research the answer.

As happens here, we catholics provide link, references to the CCC, when needed for the CC teachings.

If you think the answer given is wrong…then why don’t you provide the official document from the LDS as what is actually taught?

If the LDS is truly a restoration of the original church…then mistakes like that should not happen…right? no? For it demonstrates what others have said here…LD doctrine is a moving goal post.

Considering we don’t have full time staff at our churches, I really question who he called
If he spoke to the local missionary over the phone, either the missionary misheard the question or made a claim against doctrine.

How can you expect me to provide a link to a doctrine that doesn’t exist? I think it is called the impossible task of proving a negative. If we teach something else besides the virgin birth, I task my accusers to show me this doctrine.

LDS believe in the VIRGIN BIRTH
Luke 1:34;
1 Nephi 11:13-20
Alma1 & Alma 7:10

 

[pablope]

Considering we don’t have full time staff at our churches, I really question who he called
If he spoke to the local missionary over the phone, either the missionary misheard the question or made a claim against doctrine.

 

[Tony888]

How about McKonkie? How do you read his statement (see above)? I know how my children were begotten. What am I missing here?

JHow, I suggest you read up on Prooftexting, and work hard to avoid it in the future.

I expect you did not actually read McKonkie. In the same volume that you are quoting he states:

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.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 822

Clearly it is an anti-LDS fabrication to claim McConkie taught God had sex with Mary.
But who needs the truth when the Prooftext lies are so much fun?!?!

pablo, per your below question,
NO, the LDS have never had an official doctrine that explains the virgin birth as not being a virgin birth.

Well…teachings were posted here from past LDS prophets/apostles/higher ups…so the LDS somehow had an official teaching somewhere…and now you are saying…the LDS does not know? No official stand?

 

[eo_chibears]

. . . how do Mormons keep together all these disparate, anti-factual aspects of their faith? I mean the notions about American geography, etc., long disproved by archaeology? And the big Race War in History concept?

I’m not knocking Mormons. I just see the potential for a great deal of internal cognitive dissonance, and wonder how it’s all reconciled.

It is heresy.