LDS: Jesus is the "son" of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BDawg said:
If Adam’s body was created through evolutionary processes, then it was necessarily created via sex.
Click to expand...
Not human sex; humans didn’t exist yet.
I would rather you do it. I consider myself a guest here, and I don’t feel comfortable starting threads. I would rather just try to address questions other people bring up.
Click to expand...
Ok, I will start a new thread. What do you suggest the topic be?
zerinus said:
That is because you are turning a deaf ear and blind eye to what I am saying. The Bible tells us that Jesus was called the Son of God because He was born without human intervention. It was performed by the power of the Holy Ghost, as a miracle:
Luke 1:

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.Do you think that you could tell me what it is about that verse that you do not understand?

zerinus
Click to expand...
He will be called what He is, the Son of God. That does not necessarly require biological sonship.

Also, I already pointed out Adam was called “the Son of God” in Lk 3, and Jesus was called “the only begotten Son of God” before he came to earth (1 Jn4:9), so you have to explain that.
 
ibkc said:
Wait a minute. I thought that the Mormons taught that Jesus was conceived directly of the Father, without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. That this was where non-Mormons got the misunderstanding that sex was involved, and also one of the many big things that separate the LDS church from Christianity.

Now you’re saying that the Holy Spirit was involved after all?
Click to expand...
:hmmm:
 
wmscott said:
Catholic Dude, I have been following this post since my first few and poorly worded posts regarding LDS. Some of my questions that I was really curious about was taken as rude. Therefore, as not to offend anyone further, I have been mostly following the threads. I want to ask a question although it may seem to be more of a statement or observation. To me, and totally in my own opinion, it seems to me that the whole concept that the LDS has regarding the birth of Jesus Christ is that they try to transform God the Father’s divine and spiritual nature by dragging it down to meager human terms and understandings. God, Father – Son – Holy Spirit, is far beyond our comprehension and as simple humans how can we be expected to explain the mysteries of our Faith. To me it seems that in the LDS point of view they are not only trivializing our Lord, but that they are assigning themselves equal status as God. By their own words, they think that God the Father had flesh and bone. With all of this talk of DNA, this is what I see as another attempt to bring God down to our level. This is a total distortion as to who God is. Sorry if this offends anyone but this is how I see it. 🤷
Click to expand...
I would agree with this assesment. Heresy in its essence is mankind trying to oversimplify Truths that transcend our created and finite minds.

It is the similar to explaining negative numbers to a child who can only comprehend simple addition.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
Ok, I will start a new thread. What do you suggest the topic be?
Click to expand...
Hi CD,

How about “The Divine Nature in Mormonism,” or something like that? We could compare and contrast what Mormons and Catholics see as the nature of God, and argue for our respective positions. Sound good?
 
Carl_Nicholas said:
Hello again Z,

I think I may have found something that we CAN agree on

My intention for being here does not seem genuine to you.

Your intention for being here does not seem genuine to me.

Maybe a starting point of common ground??

God bless,
Carl
Click to expand...
Let me assure you that I have no reason to question your intentions for being here. Now if you have misgivings about my intentions, that is a matter for you to decide. There isn’t much that I can do about that. But what do you mean by “genuine”? What do you think I should be doing for my intentions to be “genuine”? In a post in another thread I explained what were my intentions. First of all I am not here in order to learn about Catholicism—although I am grateful for what I do learn as a byproduct of the exercise. But that is not the primary motive. My intentions are, firstly, that I enjoy religious discussion. I like the challenge. Most people don’t. That is why there are not many Mormons here (or Catholics). But I am one of those few people that do. That is one reason. Another reason is that there are a number of anti-Mormons and Mormons apostates here who like to spread disinformation about Mormonism. Well, I don’t like to let them to get away with it. I like to provide a counterbalance to their disinformation—and to provide the correct information to those few who occasionally crop up who are interested in correct information about Mormonism. I am not here to specifically convert anybody to Mormonism; but if as a result of something that I have said here somebody decides to become a Mormon, I can’t say that I have any regrets about that either. These are basically my motives. Now I would like you to tell me what you think I should be doing for my intentions to be, as you say, “genuine”?

zerinus
 
Catholic_Dude said:
He will be called what He is, the Son of God. That does not necessarly require biological sonship.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about “biological sonship”? You are sayning that; I didn’t. Quit putting words in my mouth; do you mind?

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Let me assure you that I have no reason to question your intentions for being here. Now if you have misgivings about my intentions, that is a matter for you to decide. There isn’t much that I can do about that. But what do you mean by “genuine”? What do you think I should be doing for my intentions to be “genuine”? In a post in another thread I explained what were my intentions. First of all I am not here in order to learn about Catholicism—although I am grateful for what I do learn as a byproduct of the exercise. But that is not the primary motive. My intentions are, firstly, that I enjoy religious discussion. I like the challenge. Most people don’t. That is why there are not many Mormons here (or Catholics). But I am one of those few people that do. That is one reason. Another reason is that there are a number of anti-Mormons and Mormons apostates here who like to spread disinformation about Mormonism. Well, I don’t like to let them to get away with it. I like to provide a counterbalance to their disinformation—and to provide the correct information to those few who occasionally crop up who are interested in correct information about Mormonism. I am not here to specifically convert anybody to Mormonism; but if as a result of something that I have said here somebody decides to become a Mormon, I can’t say that I have any regrets about that either. These are basically my motives. Now I would like you to tell me what you think I should be doing for my intentions to be, as you say, “genuine”?

zerinus
Click to expand...
Hi Z,

Really very simple as I see it,
When I ( Catholic who has very little understanding of what you “claim” to defend “Mormonism”), have questions regarding the the very information you “claim” that you like to give balance on.
You DO NOT give the answers ( instead ) you go off on an antiMorman rant that ( to me anyway ) offers little substance to these " sharing and contrasting beliefs"

To adress your closing question to me ( NOTICE I WILL ANSWER IT ) ( part of me being genuine ) I would suggest that you DO what you claim to be here for, shedding light from the Morman prespective and answering or correcting these " antiMorman statements"

God bless,
Carl
 
BDawg said:
Hi Z,

I said that, so he may be conflating what you and I said.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don’t have the time to read all the posts carefully enough. But on the subject of “biology,” I don’t think that we have enough information revealed to us to be able to talk about the “biological inheritance” of Jesus Christ. The only thing that the scriptures reveal to us is that Jesus was called the Son of God because He did not have a natural father. That does not give us enough information to make any inferences about His “genetic makeup”. Whatever conclusion we reach about that would have to be speculation, which in my opinion should be avoided.

God the Father is a glorified and exalted being, and has that kind of a body. We have no idea how such a body is constructed, and whether “genetics” is the correct language that can be used to describe it. If His body is not the same as ours, then He cannot “transmit” any genes to Jesus Christ either, because maybe He hasn’t any. We don’t know; and it is not wise to speculate about what we don’t know.

zerinus
 
ibkc said:
Wait a minute. I thought that the Mormons taught that Jesus was conceived directly of the Father, without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. That this was where non-Mormons got the misunderstanding that sex was involved, and also one of the many big things that separate the LDS church from Christianity.

Now you’re saying that the Holy Spirit was involved after all?
Click to expand...
Mormonism claims that the Blessed Virgin had to be “admitted to the presence of the Father” in order to accomplish her impregnation. Early Mormons knew exactly why Mary needed to be in the physical presence of the Mormon god in order to be impregnated by him; modern Mormons seem to have forgotten. :hmmm:

The Holy Ghost was necessary to protect Mary from the deadly effect of being in the presence of an exalted man. Since “no man (or woman) can see God and live”, the Holy Ghost was there to protect Mary from being killed. Exactly how that works, and why the Mormon god himself could not protect Mary, are separate issues.

Paul
 
PaulDupre said:
Mormonism claims that the Blessed Virgin had to be “admitted to the presence of the Father” in order to accomplish her impregnation. Early Mormons knew exactly why Mary needed to be in the physical presence of the Mormon god in order to be impregnated by him; modern Mormons seem to have forgotten. :hmmm:

The Holy Ghost was necessary to protect Mary from the deadly effect of being in the presence of an exalted man. Since “no man (or woman) can see God and live”, the Holy Ghost was there to protect Mary from being killed. Exactly how that works, and why the Mormon god himself could not protect Mary, are separate issues.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Paul.

Honestly, the Trinity makes a lot more sense to me.
 
Carl_Nicholas said:
Hi Z,

Really very simple as I see it,
When I ( Catholic who has very little understanding of what you “claim” to defend “Mormonism”), have questions regarding the the very information you “claim” that you like to give balance on.
You DO NOT give the answers ( instead ) you go off on an antiMorman rant that ( to me anyway ) offers little substance to these " sharing and contrasting beliefs"

To adress your closing question to me ( NOTICE I WILL ANSWER IT ) ( part of me being genuine ) I would suggest that you DO what you claim to be here for, shedding light from the Morman prespective and answering or correcting these " antiMorman statements"

God bless,
Carl
Click to expand...
Okay, let me ask you a question now. You posted this list of questions:
  1. Were the gold bars NOT present when JS " translated them " ( If not then what was the purpose of the gold bars
  2. Did he NOT use the " secret glasses" when " translating " ( if not did he ever use them
  3. Did he use a sear stone ( found on a seperate dig ) on a later date
  4. Did he " translate" from the bottom of a hat with new sear stone. ( seems very confusing if you hold God to be in the driver’s seat
  5. Dis JS have a history with " hat and stones " before BoM ( fortune telling to people)
Click to expand...
Do you mind telling me where you got that information from? My guess is that you obtained it from an anti-Mormon source (either a website or a publication). I could be mistaken about that of couerse. If so, do you mind telling me where you got it from? I am interested to know.

zerinus
 
PaulDupre said:
Mormonism claims that the Blessed Virgin had to be “admitted to the presence of the Father” in order to accomplish her impregnation. Early Mormons knew exactly why Mary needed to be in the physical presence of the Mormon god in order to be impregnated by him; modern Mormons seem to have forgotten. :hmmm:

The Holy Ghost was necessary to protect Mary from the deadly effect of being in the presence of an exalted man. Since “no man (or woman) can see God and live”, the Holy Ghost was there to protect Mary from being killed. Exactly how that works, and why the Mormon god himself could not protect Mary, are separate issues.
Click to expand...
“Mormonism” teaches no such thing. Some Mormons may teach such a thing; but there is no scriptural authority to back that up. That means that it is not true LDS doctrine.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
“Mormonism” teaches no such thing. Some Mormons may teach such a thing; but there is no scriptural authority to back that up. That means that it is not true LDS doctrine.
Click to expand...
But BDawg said basically the same thing as Paul, although with more vagueness: that the Holy Spirit’s role was to help (in whatever way) with her nebulous encounter with the Father, in which He somehow impregnated her. Why are you correcting Paul but not BDawg?
 
ibkc said:
But BDawg said basically the same thing as Paul, although with more vagueness: that the Holy Spirit’s role was to help (in whatever way) with her nebulous encounter with the Father, in which He somehow impregnated her. Why are you correcting Paul but not BDawg?
Click to expand...
I differ with Z on this.

“But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my bnatural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have ebeheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his iface, for I was jtransfigured before him.” (Moses 1:11)
 
zerinus said:
Who said anything about “biological sonship”? You are saying that; I didn’t. Quit putting words in my mouth; do you mind?

zerinus
Click to expand...
I’m using the term “biological” to distinguish from the Catholic notion that God the Son is not a “son” in the sense Mormons are thinking.

If God the Father has a literal body of flesh and was the literal father of Jesus, JUST AS Mary is the literal Mother, that makes God the “biological” father by definition. God the Father’s DNA plus Mary’s DNA, resulting in a son, Jesus.
 
zerinus said:
“Mormonism” teaches no such thing. Some Mormons may teach such a thing; but there is no scriptural authority to back that up. That means that it is not true LDS doctrine.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Some Mormons? You mean like all the prophets and apostles since Joseph Smith?

Unfortunately for you, Z, Mormonism is not a sola scriptura religion. The teachings of your modern prophets and apostles are the very heart and soul of your religion. It is the big selling point of the missionary lessons. When a prophet teaches something in a general conference talk or in the Ensign magazine, it is LDS doctrine.

Much of what is taught in your church manuals is drawn from outside the standard works. How many times is the Journal of Discourses cited as a source in the Gospel Principles manual? (Hint: a lot)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top