LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[Peter_John]

I have a dirty mind?:tsktsk:

None of the statements to which I responded state anything affirming that God had sexual relations with Mary. They may be subject to that inference, but they can be otherwise interpreted. Affirming that this is the interpretation comes from your mind, not the words themselves.

I have provided both the intended implication and explanation of how the vague explanation is not equivocation: they mean exactly what they say. God is literally the Father of Jesus in the same sense that our earthly Fathers are ours: in modern terms, half of Jesus genetic material came from God himself. The Holy Spirit mediated this conception in some way we do not know. Mary literally and completely remained a Virgin in the only literal and complete sense of the word until after Jesus was born.

Do any fo the statements you used contradict these statements? If not then affirming they mean other than I have expressed and nothing else means you choose to believe a lie and perpetuate that lie by passing it onto others.

Could they mean what you say? On their own, yes, but that is not all they could mean. Therefore if that is all you think they can mean, and cannot accept they can mean something else than you interpret, you have a dirty mind.

Can you see how thay copuld mean something else than you affirm, or do you consider your affirmation the only interpretation of those words?

 

[lax16]

I cannot express how disappointed I am that Christians so foten misunderstood for their beliefs regarding such things as statues in worship, practices of praying to Saints and to the Virgin Mother, beliefs about transubstantiation, confession (most non-Catholics think we believe that we get absolution through confession without repentance), etc would be so stubbornly closed-minded about understanding these LDS expressions from an LDS perspective.

I find it shameful.

In posts regarding any other topics: statements about belief in Father , Son, and Holy Spirit, or that Jesus is the Son of God, you would all quckly affirm that they define these terms differently. In this case you apply your definitions to what they say, and will not accept their definitions simply because then it does not mean what it must to look like Mormons believe God had sex with Mary.

The simple fact is: None of these statements affirm that God and Mary had sex. Inferring it means so is not justified either in light of the body of the rest of their doctrine, or in light of it specifically. We have had LDS members affirming that it does not mean this without equivocation.

I can perhaps be more critical of the LDS Church than most other former Mormons, but I can assure you it does not mean this. It is not and has never been part of the LDS teachings.

I am going top compare it to the perception other denominations have that Catholics believe unbaptized infants go to hell because it was not until recently the Church affirmed that there might be foundation to believe they go to heaven.

Mormonism teaches 1) Jesus was literally begotten of God the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit, making it simultaneously a literal physical conception of two parents (God and Mary) and a miraculous conception 2) This was done in sanctity and in purity, meaning it was not through a sexual act.

Wrestle with the words all you want. It is what they teach.

I am not wrestling with the words. Their own “experts” have written that they never made **“it” **doctrine.

Made what doctrine? The 19th century ideas put forth BY MANY OF THE LDS LEADERS that Jesus came about by natural means.

To claim otherwise is strange, actually. To put onto me what their leaders taught is…well…what can I say? You are the one detracting from the topic, Peter John. Why is that?

It is what they teach NOW. It is not what they have always taught. If so, show me the early church documents to prove it.

 

[Inishfree]

Lax,

For what it’s worth. I don’t think that you have a “dirty mind.” You are asking questions. Nothing wrong with this.

I am also bombarded in regards to Mormon theology.

 

[Peter_John]

I am not wrestling with the words. Their own “experts” have written that they never made **“it” **doctrine.

Made what doctrine? The 19th century ideas put forth BY MANY OF THE LDS LEADERS that Jesus came about by natural means.

To claim otherwise is strange, actually. To put onto me what their leaders taught is…well…what can I say? You are the one detracting from the topic, Peter John. Why is that?

It is what they teach NOW. It is not what they have always taught. If so, show me the early church documents to prove it.

Catholicism’s own experts have affirmed that the Church never made unbaptized infants spending eternity in Limbo – or even the existence of “Limbo” as Dogma. Does the fact that it was discussed and even included in Dante’s “Inferno” make these affirmations backpedaling?

I do not see how I am detracting from the topic by telling the truth about it. I have acknowledged that early leaders talked about the idea, but the Church never affirmed it doctrine. Should I say that Catholicism backpedaled on the teachings of Arias? Even though tens of thousands believed Arianism it was never part of the Church’s dogma.

I would not doubt that some Mormons today believe that these statements represent some secret teaching that God and Mary had sex. That does not make it doctrine. Numerous members today believe it doctrinal that Black people were less than valiant or even collaboprators with the adversary in the pre-existence, that they will be white in the resurrection, that the Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil foretold in the Book of Mormon, or that polygamy will be reaffirmed a valid practice in their lifetimes. That does not make any of these doctrine, and despite the fact that some leaders have in the past speculated on these points (and some have personal;y taught them) does not make it doctrine of the Church.

Why do I defend this point? Because if we dispute over things that are invalid, we have no right to assert our correctness in valid criticism.

Mormons simply do not believe that Mary and God had sex.

 

[lax16]

Catholicism’s own experts have affirmed that the Church never made unbaptized infants spending eternity in Limbo – or even the existence of “Limbo” as Dogma. Does the fact that it was discussed and even included in Dante’s “Inferno” make these affirmations backpedaling?

I do not see how I am detracting from the topic by telling the truth about it. I have acknowledged that early leaders talked about the idea, but the Church never affirmed it doctrine. Should I say that Catholicism backpedaled on the teachings of Arias? Even though tens of thousands believed Arianism it was never part of the Church’s dogma.

I would not doubt that some Mormons today believe that these statements represent some secret teaching that God and Mary had sex. That does not make it doctrine. Numerous members today believe it doctrinal that Black people were less than valiant or even collaboprators with the adversary in the pre-existence, that they will be white in the resurrection, that the Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil foretold in the Book of Mormon, or that polygamy will be reaffirmed a valid practice in their lifetimes. That does not make any of these doctrine, and despite the fact that some leaders have in the past speculated on these points (and some have personal;y taught them) does not make it doctrine of the Church.

Why do I defend this point? Because if we dispute over things that are invalid, we have no right to assert our correctness in valid criticism.

Mormons simply do not believe that Mary and God had sex.

They have an ever-changing doctrine, Peter John.

I disagree with you and your name-calling tactics to prove your point.

It was taught throughout the nineteenth century, all members believed it to be true up until________?

They used this as a means to separate themselves from Christianity, now they want to be accepted by Christianity. They twist and turn to win the popularity contest.

If they want to proclaim something different now, as they do with polygamy, fine with me. However, to act like it was never taught is ridiculous.
Admit it, it was a teaching. Not doctrine you say, but they say that about everything they try to change about their original teachings.

btw - you called me an idiot among other things. Please don’t respond to me anymore.

 

[Peter_John]

They have an ever-changing doctrine, Peter John.

I disagree with you and your name-calling tactics to prove your point.

It was taught throughout the nineteenth century, all members believed it to be true up until________?

They used this as a means to separate themselves from Christianity, now they want to be accepted by Christianity. They twist and turn to win the popularity contest.

If they want to proclaim something different now, as they do with polygamy, fine with me. However, to act like it was never taught is ridiculous.
Admit it, it was a teaching. Not doctrine you say, but they say that about everything they try to change about their original teachings.

btw - you called me an idiot among other things. Please don’t respond to me anymore.

There was never a time when all members believed it doctrine that God the father and Mary had sex. There was never a time when the majority of members believed this. There was never a time when it was LDS doctrine.

If the statements you have cited are those you use to argue that it was taught throughout the 19th Century, 1) None of those statements affirm that God had sex with Mary, and 2) They use the same statements today to instruct in this. Do you have other statements?

I am not calling names. If you insist that the references you provided can only mean that the Father and Mary had sex, then you have a dirty mind. I concur they are open to such inference, but that is what you nbring to the table. None of them mean that with no other interpretation, and I have provided you with the valid interpretation. To insist that it must mean what you think means that you can only perceive sexuality in words having nothing to do with sex in the context in which they are applied.

Finding only sexual content in the presence of alternative interpretations is the function of a dirty mind. If it is any consolation, it is my biggest weakness, so I could say it takes one to know one. This and the Song of Solomon are two places where I perceive the alternative to the apparent as the valid application.

Do you have any sources that affirm they believe God and Mary had sex, or that they believe the term “Virgin” is relative to only having sex with mortal men? If you do, I want to see it. Otherwise you have to interpret all of these statements in terms of LDS afirmations that 1) Mary remained a Virgin 2) The conception was in sanctity and pure and 3) It was done by the power of the Holy Ghost – all of which the LDS Church affirms and has always affirmed.

Do not project your own lack of belief that the Eternal father (if he actually had a body) is powerful enough to impregante a mortal without sexual activity onto Mormons who doi have faith enough to believe that. Believing that God cannot do this affirms Man more powerful than God, since we can make a woman who has never had sex pregnant by a man she has never even seen, much less touched.

If you keep insisting that these citations can only mean what you say, all you do is affirm that man is more powerful than God.

 

[Peter_John]

btw - you called me an idiot among other things. Please don’t respond to me anymore.

I stated in a response supporting ParkerD, “Only idiots with a personal ax to grind advance this detraction. Only fools continue believing it when presented with the context.”

This was not a response to you. It was not a statement personally aimed at you. However your own claim that it applies to you suggests you have an ax to grind, which should reflect on the credibility of your own interpretation of the issue.

As long as you continue posting blatantly untrue affirmations of what Mormons believe regarding this issue, I will continue responding. :slapfight:

Perhaps I should ask why you are so insistent on believing these citations in particular mean what you say after they have been explained in semantic context (I have not explained the historic context of the remarks or the full cultural context.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

I was taught that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary in order to protect her from the overwhelming power of the Mormon “God the Father”, in order that Mary could conceive Jesus in the same manner as every child is conceived. This was taught, and a widespread belief in Utah at least, in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

To the idea this gives a person a “dirty mind”, seriously, Mormons accuse Catholics all the time of “being afraid of sex” as a reason for why we would find this teaching incredibly offensive.

When I read Mormon discussions on this subject, there is a wide range of belief, from, “I find it as repulsive as you do and it didn’t happen”, to, “I believe this is a correct teaching and see nothing wrong with it.” All of which, are not doctrinal but personal belief.

Which again goes to Mormon orthodoxy…there isn’t any such thing. An individual Mormon can hold beliefs that are wide ranging, and conflicting to another individual, and everyone can claim these conflicting beliefs are divinely inspired.

Mormonism is pragmatic, that is what must be understood about individual Mormon belief, when having dialogue with a Mormon. In non-doctrinal areas such as this, what one Mormon said to you 20 years ago in Utah, doesn’t have to align to what a Mormon from NYC is saying to you today…and Mormons are perfectly fine with this.

It makes perfect sense in Mormon mythology, and is no more dirty minded than saying I was conceived by my parents in the same way that Jesus was conceived by the Mormon “God the Father” and Mary…it isn’t like a Mormon would contemplate on the nitty gritty details for either scenario…and neither does a Catholic.

The concept is offensive to all Christians, without exception. The level of offense to an individual Mormon, ranges widely.

It should be noted, that modern Mormons retain the belief but put the belief in modern terms, such as, Jesus has the DNA of Mary and Father. They’ll turn to things like AI or something that is not understood yet. These concept didn’t exist in the last part of the 19th century, and so there is but one explanation for the conception of Jesus by Mormons from that time period.

 

[Peter_John]

The 19th century ideas put forth BY MANY OF THE LDS LEADERS that Jesus came about by natural means.

I do not understand why you claim they are backpedaling on this. They have always taught it, still do, and always will – but our definition of what that means applies no more than our definition of “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

What does the term “natural means” mean to a Mormon? Mormons believe that Jesus turned water into wine by natural means (James E. Talmage, “Jesus the Christ” the same source as some of your quotes, I believe.) They believe that God never acts in violation of natural law, but in accordance with it. If a miracle seems to violate a natural law it is merely because we do not ourselves understand the higher law that applies.

"Natural means" in this case also intentionally euphemizes that they believe it took a divine gamete and a human gamete to make a holy zygote – no disrespect intended, but that is the most blunt way I could put it to get the point across. They were trying to be even more discrete and to express that idea reverently.

Extending that to mean it took a sexual act requires taking the line you use out of context. Removing the clarifying terms surrounding such affirmations that it was done by the power of the Holy Ghost, that it was sacred and pure, and that Mary remained a virgin. All of these mean that it did not involve sex – it was a miracle.

In historical context, this was all first expressed before any of modern genetics was even understood. In the 19th Century the language of genetics was unavailable to explain this miracle. Sure, some women used Turkey basters back then, but that still would not have left them virgins – and as you see, that analogy conjures less than reverent images.

In theological context they specifically intend to refute that either some human was Christ’s father or that Mary was the only physical parent-both of which they consider heretical. They also intend to affirm that she conceived as a virgin in every sense of the word, but to refute perpetual virginity at the same time.

How could someone with a pseudo-Victorian sensibility, no knowledge of modern genetics, a belief that miracles are the result of applying natural laws yet unclear to us, and a desire to present the idea reverently, express the following, while making the theological points I described?:

“God sacredly joined his genetic material with a woman’s genetic material through some asexual action of the Holy Spirit we do not understand, so that she remained a Virgin yet miraculously conceived.”

They would express that just as they did in the citations you provided, which present the ideas much more attractively than I just did. They have never changed this teaching.

Personally, when I finally considered it in modern terms I also found it antithetical to God’s omnipotence, as it means God has genes and chromosomes, which by definition limit capabilities. I think that is the real issue with LDS doctrine of the Virgin birth. This Deckeresque distraction of God as pervert keeps talking about the real issue off the table. We can’t really address the real issues until we accept their valid doctrine.

 

[Peter_John]

I was taught that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary in order to protect her from the overwhelming power of the Mormon “God the Father”, in order that Mary could conceive Jesus in the same manner as every child is conceived. This was taught, and a widespread belief in Utah at least, in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

To the idea this gives a person a “dirty mind”, seriously, Mormons accuse Catholics all the time of “being afraid of sex” as a reason for why we would find this teaching incredibly offensive.

When I read Mormon discussions on this subject, there is a wide range of belief, from, “I find it as repulsive as you do and it didn’t happen”, to, “I believe this is a correct teaching and see nothing wrong with it.” All of which, are not doctrinal but personal belief.

Which again goes to Mormon orthodoxy…there isn’t any such thing. An individual Mormon can hold beliefs that are wide ranging, and conflicting to another individual, and everyone can claim these conflicting beliefs are divinely inspired.

Mormonism is pragmatic, that is what must be understood about individual Mormon belief, when having dialogue with a Mormon. In non-doctrinal areas such as this, what one Mormon said to you 20 years ago in Utah, doesn’t have to align to what a Mormon from NYC is saying to you today…and Mormons are perfectly fine with this.

It makes perfect sense in Mormon mythology, and is no more dirty minded than saying I was conceived by my parents in the same way that Jesus was conceived by the Mormon “God the Father” and Mary…it isn’t like a Mormon would contemplate on the nitty gritty details for either scenario…and neither does a Catholic.

The concept is offensive to all Christians, without exception. The level of offense to an individual Mormon, ranges widely.

It should be noted, that modern Mormons retain the belief but put the belief in modern terms, such as, Jesus has the DNA of Mary and Father. They’ll turn to things like AI or something that is not understood yet. These concept didn’t exist in the last part of the 19th century, and so there is but one explanation for the conception of Jesus by Mormons from that time period.

Your teachers did teach, however, that Mary remained a virgin, correct? There were actually two explanations at the end of the 19th Century: An unvalidated tradition among some which is the subject of this debate, and which could never be accepted as doctrine as it makes Mary’s virginity figurative, OR we don’t know how it happened, but it was by the power of the Holy Ghost (and yes, they did describe it as overwhelming and protective) and Mary remained a virgin, literally. That was accepted as doctrine, and was how it was still taught as late as the 1970s. Never heard anyone refer to God’s DNA.

I think the difference on this issue in particular is more exagerrated comparing “Western” Mormons to “Eastern” Mormons. Mormons in the Mountain West are more likely to consider the more controversial interpretation, and may even have been taught it at Home Evenings (though not out of the manual). They may even have had Sunday School teachers who teach it more from family tradition, and augment the manual with their own interpretations. You can almost gauge how close to Salt Lake you are by the prominence of specific interpretations considered valid. This issue usually goes hand in hand with some of the others I mentioned (Catholicism Church of the Devil, Blacks whit in resurrection, ertc. – all fallacies, but largeley accepted because families have perpetuated it.

In the East I have observed less liklihood of diverging from the strict presentations in the manual. On this issue my teachers carefully affirmed that I should not read anything into the statement: (Though I did have one college age convert teacher in the 1970s who used Jesus Christ Superstar to teach the Gospels. The LDS Church condemned it at the time, so I was surprised when I found it so consistent with “Jesus the Christ”.

I have to dispute that there has been no orthodoxy in Mormonism. By definition the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Orthodox brand of Mormonism among some several hundred divergent groups.

Within this Orthodox Mormonism, which Salt Lake takes pains to assure is the only one the Associated Press considers validly called Mormonism (trademark protection?) there has to be internal orthodixy, or individuals could not be considered “Jack Mormons”.

I see some internal diversity of belief developing, but it still depends on how firmly local officials apply the very hierarchical rules handed down. Temple recommend questions have changed quite a bit over the last 40 years, particularly those regarding sexuality within marriage. They used to ask about specific acts, until they figured out that many people never even heard of them until the interview, which got them thinking … . Now they are just allowed to ask if they keep the law of chastity.

I would say that those who are always “Temple Worthy” equate to Orthodoxy. There’s also a sort of reformed tier, people who wear colored shirts to meetings, turn down callings when asked, maybe don’t pay a full tithe, but largely comply – or present compliance – with the general rules. Then the Jack Mormons would be the liberals – not keeping the Word of Wisdom, avoiding meetings, but still believing in the Church.

The “New Order Mormon” trend is quite interesting, and I think represents a stepping stone to LDS breakout to recognition as a separate religion in its own right. they have things like alternative Sunday School classes, and may approach Mormonism as more of a religious cultural matrix than a mandate of belief. They may dismiss many of the Church’s literal teachings personally, accepting them as metaphor, and maintain activity.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

Christ said that those who become His disciples will have hundreds of wives, children…spiritual…

And all our relationships in Christ will continue to grow with each other in love in heaven.

Those who deny themselves for the Gospel…find new relationships in many people…

Those in the consecrated life actually receive many, many more personal relationships than if they married!!!

Catholic missionaries even see their approximate brothers and sisters as also their sons or daughters…

Kathleen or others interested,

I don’t know if this reply to you will be lost amidst the other conversation, but here you go:

I assume, since you talked about “hundreds of wives”, you were referring to the following passage in Matthew 19:

27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

In the first place, verse 29 is a continuation of the teaching Christ had given about the young rich man, and Christ had used the words “If thou wilt be perfect…” (v. 21) so He is talking about reaching upward toward that ultimate goal of being perfect, and it certainly requires being willing to “forsake all” as He taught and as Peter had said (even though Peter was still a fisherman and thus had a vocation).

Forsaking all in the context of talking about “brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children” is talking about forsaking the traditions of those closest family members, since the Jews had very strong and embedded traditions and Jesus was teaching the “new gospel” which was doing away with so many of those traditions.

We see this same need today, of forsaking traditions in order to be led by the living Christ, the Good Shepherd.

The words “an hundredfold” do not mean “hundreds of wives”–they mean hundreds of close relationships but certainly include family within those relationships, since the Savior had just earlier in the same day (chapter 19 shows) been talking about the husband wife relationship, and thus the family relationship.

It reminds one of the words that were expressed to Rebekkah, “be thou the mother of thousands of millions”.

The intimate relationships within a family are far more likely to bring one into a situation where their need for really looking at their innermost motives, and hence the need for repentance and change, than less intimate relationships.

Ultimately, this is another example of the filter process that this life is all about, where people are being allowed to choose “what do I really want”, even with respect to relationships in the hereafter.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I would say that those who are always “Temple Worthy” equate to Orthodoxy. There’s also a sort of reformed tier, people who wear colored shirts to meetings, .

Colored shirts?? What do shirts have to do with orthodoxy?

 

[Peter_John]

Colored shirts?? What do shirts have to do with orthodoxy?

Strictly speaking it falls under culture more than doctrine. Men who wear colored shirts rather than white shirts to Sacrament meeting often get lovingly advised by their leaders that they should wear a white shirt, and tie of course, in case they also neglected to wear one of those. This is more emphasized as they take greater roles in meetings or hold more responsible positions of leadership. Even now when talking with LDS members they might demonstrate that someone has a less “orthodox” attitude by referring to the wearing a colored shirt. Once a priesthood leader has advised you personally about wearing a white shirt (or cutting your hair, beard or mustache, or wearing a tie) disregarding that counsel becomes an act of self-affirmation and arguably dissent.

 

[KathleenGee]

HI Parker,

I worked with a priest who spoke of this blessing by Christ Who renounce all for Him…I have particular ‘brother and sister’ relationships with those who are more on the same spiritual wave length than those of my own kin.

When I see the personal sacrifice of the priest not to have his own wife and provide for her…they tell me this is a great sacrifice for them…but the call is greater. And one priest said he just let all that go at ordination, and like the vast majority of parish priests…they long for time to just be alone in the Lord.

Most priests seek quiet time and solitude rather than a wife and sex. They have a different constitution than us. But their lives are so so full of so many people, counselling thousands upon thousands in their life time.

All priests who are genuinely called are happy with their vocation. And yes, they see this return of thousands to counsel and share the life of Christ with as a fulfillment of that passage of Christ’s gospel.

Tradition holds by some early church fathers that with the demands of spreading the Good News and the documents of the martyrdom of practically all of the apostles…that they could have lived a more celibate life.

And with the demands of the priesthood, and the growing awareness of the sacredness of the liturgy, and the reality that with the threat of imprisonment and death, the marginalization that comes with being a counter culture Christian, being monogamous, and devoid of contraception that we see today (there was contraception in ancient times), most Christians then considered sex for more for propagation, rather than the sexual indulgence we see today in marriages.

St John the Evangelist was most close to Jesus because he understood Christ’s message of love, and it gender was not an issue but of recognizing Christ in those in need, hungry, poor, naked, imprisoned, the dying, the troublesome, to be detached from riches and worldly praise. There was not the emphasis on sexual imagery and relations, and marriage as I see in your religion.

So again, you can’t take Scripture out there and personally reinterpret it—St. Peter condemned that in his second letter…and he witnessed Christ for over 3 years…chastity, one man and one wife, and celibacy were valued because in part chastity symbolizes the state of life we are all called to, married or not.

New life is about Jesus Christ, transcendent, universal, already here…we just removing our own spiritual blindness to this new reality.

 

[KathleenGee]

Peter John,

Salt Lake City is the headquarters of the ‘official’ Mormon church. So we as Catholics expect it to be the source of the true understanding of Mormonism, its leadership, and its practices.

Same with the Vatican…(it is by the way, not on 7 hills…Rome is…the Vatican is across the river on flatland…so with its geography clarified…it can’t be part of that imagery from Revelations of the place on 7 hills–bad place. When this passage was written, Athens is on 7 hills, Jerusalem is on 7 hills.)

The Vatican is the center and head of Catholicism. You know it is the center representing true Catholic teachings. There are clerics there who are anxious to get u on a soap box, and misrepresent the Church’s stand on issues that are not reflecting the spirit and understanding of our faith. A true, simple Catholic can listen to a reference…and right away sense something is wrong with the message…it sits in the heart…and within a week or 2…or from the pulpit, we hear that the remark was indeed just that…and that here is the true Catholic understanding of such and such.

A simple Catholic who has the apostolic, universal faith can go on, even without the sacraments for a period of time, or without contact with a priest or representative of the Church. We know what our teachings are, and they go back to the beginning.

The ‘New Yorker Magazine’ had an article earlier this year on the Vatican Library…its documents open to the public. They withhold sensitive materials reflecting complex relationships…and when that particular period is over, they are made open as well. We did not have the facts on the Spanish Inquisition until August of 2003, and it was not anywhere as bad as the source—1850’s American Restorationists – had made out. The Church in fact exonerated so many of the accused…the actions more reflective of a few priests or lay people.

With this documentation, the earliest times sporadic because of those times, we receive a consistent understanding of Christ…completed with the Nicene Creed. Our priesthood is part of Melchizedek…no beginning or end…simply because Scripture didn’t say any more…the perpetual and perfect sacrifice united with the Glorious Lord Jesus in heaven…

I was watching a program the other day…and the study on the Biblical roots of the Mass…the fulfillment of atonement of Christ in the daily sacrifice…once you understand the liturgy – beyond the Nicene Creed, Catholic morality…and the lives of the saints, and how faith was lived out particular to every generation–every phrase and event in Sacred Scripture makes sense.

So it is irrelevant to us to invalidate our faith on the particularities of any wayward or fallen cleric…the church is a human institution…we are to keep our eyes on Christ…the foundation of Roman/Orthodox Christianity. Doing so, we remain in the apostolic faith given us by His witnesses, the Apostles.

It doesn’t matter about the scandal…for to lose faith over someone else’s failings…well, then, you are not Christ-centered, but more proud and self-righteous…shakey ground, ready to fall. Our saints warn us from living out their own lives, not to focus on scandal, etc. around you, but Jesus Christ Who has triumphed over all.

Again, I encourage all people participating to read John Paul II’s book, ‘Threshold of Hope’…a priest gave it to me for my absolution…several years ago…and I am still reading it…

When we stand before God in our daily lives, being extensions of His sacred body, blood, soul, and divinity, we are indeed bearing witness to Christ–even if we are hidden in our own domestic life, such as mine.

 

[KathleenGee]

Peter John,

You are defining the ‘New Mormon’…and those are the ones I think are full of baloney, because they appear to deny any of the other things we disagree with or think down right outlandish…so they do not come across as truthful to me.

I mean, we can admit things that came out of bad popes, bad behavior, lack of charity, excessive, imbalanced penitential practices…but then we do not have changing beliefs.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Your teachers did teach, however, that Mary remained a virgin, correct?

Yes Peter John but like many things coming from Mormonism, “virginity” was redefined.

I’ll PM you with a link to a recent conversation. I’m not posting it here because I don’t have any desire to promote their heresies.

I think the difference on this issue in particular is more exagerrated comparing “Western” Mormons to “Eastern” Mormons. Mormons in the Mountain West are more likely to consider the more controversial interpretation, and may even have been taught it at Home Evenings (though not out of the manual). They may even have had Sunday School teachers who teach it more from family tradition, and augment the manual with their own interpretations. You can almost gauge how close to Salt Lake you are by the prominence of specific interpretations considered valid. This issue usually goes hand in hand with some of the others I mentioned (Catholicism Church of the Devil, Blacks whit in resurrection, ertc. – all fallacies, but largeley accepted because families have perpetuated it.

Considering the heart of Mormonism is Salt Lake City, UT, yes. Mormons also will change or hide what they teach people.

In the East I have observed less liklihood of diverging from the strict presentations in the manual. On this issue my teachers carefully affirmed that I should not read anything into the statement: (Though I did have one college age convert teacher in the 1970s who used Jesus Christ Superstar to teach the Gospels. The LDS Church condemned it at the time, so I was surprised when I found it so consistent with “Jesus the Christ”.

“Correlation” of beliefs to what is in a manual is relatively recent.

Mormonism has an inherent aversion creeds, mainly because it enforces an orthodoxy they don’t believe, but also because they view orthodoxy as closing off possibilities. ie, a person should be open to anything because God could reveal anything at any moment, including contradictory doctrines.

Orthodoxy precludes this.

I have to dispute that there has been no orthodoxy in Mormonism. By definition the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Orthodox brand of Mormonism among some several hundred divergent groups.

Within this Orthodox Mormonism, which Salt Lake takes pains to assure is the only one the Associated Press considers validly called Mormonism (trademark protection?) there has to be internal orthodixy, or individuals could not be considered “Jack Mormons”.

The only difference between these groups is who they believe the current authority to be.

“Jack Mormons” are people who don’t adhere to the WoW…interpretation of that adherence is broad.

I would say that those who are always “Temple Worthy” equate to Orthodoxy. There’s also a sort of reformed tier, people who wear colored shirts to meetings, turn down callings when asked, maybe don’t pay a full tithe, but largely comply – or present compliance – with the general rules. Then the Jack Mormons would be the liberals – not keeping the Word of Wisdom, avoiding meetings, but still believing in the Church.

Mormons who are not LDS can answer the LDS temple questions as “temple worthy” with the exception of accepting the LDS prophet and their GAs. Polygamous Mormons would fail that part as well. Everything else, is the same.

The “New Order Mormon” trend is quite interesting, and I think represents a stepping stone to LDS breakout to recognition as a separate religion in its own right. they have things like alternative Sunday School classes, and may approach Mormonism as more of a religious cultural matrix than a mandate of belief. They may dismiss many of the Church’s literal teachings personally, accepting them as metaphor, and maintain activity.

Yes, with all the difficulties surrounding Mormon teaching, it is a path some are choosing, almost exclusively in order to keep cultural ties and marital relationships intact.

 

[lax16]

I was taught that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary in order to protect her from the overwhelming power of the Mormon “God the Father”, in order that Mary could conceive Jesus in the same manner as every child is conceived. This was taught, and a widespread belief in Utah at least, in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Thanks for the clarification, Rebecca.

This is in-line with what the LDS teaching manual from 1976 taught.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks for the clarification, Rebecca.

This is in-line with what the LDS teaching manual from 1976 taught.

I was taught a lot of things that some Mormons now call “anti-Mormon”. It amuses me in some ways, but mainly it reinforces my view of Mormonism as duplicitous.

“Pragmatic” is a more charitable description.

 

[TheExorcist]

I was taught a lot of things that some Mormons now call “anti-Mormon”. It amuses me in some ways, but mainly it reinforces my view of Mormonism as duplicitous.

“Pragmatic” is a more charitable description.

Well you no doubt remember what BK Packer said about teaching church history in full, “some things that are true are not very useful”