Mormon's & Mary

[james71]

Prove me wrong, friend.

LOL, you dragged me back in with that one. I *was *going to bed.

I can’t prove you wrong and I won’t try. Have you ever ‘proved’ anything to anyone on these forums in a way that changed them for the better? I can sincerely share my beliefs with you. I can share what I feel is true based on my experiences. I can even tell you some of the *reasons * that support my beliefs. But reason is not why I believe. I believe because I feel the Spirit of Truth pricking my heart, continually confirming I am drawing nearer to God. Do you believe what you believe because it is provable? That to me is the set up for disaster. On what will you base your proof? Intellect? Emotion? Sight? Carbon dating? Prove to me God exists, my friend. Proof is a sword that cuts both ways. Be careful unsheathing it. I can no more prove to you that Joseph Smith saw and did anything he said he did than I can prove that Moses parted the red sea. Both events are lost to history and left to faith. Can you prove that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin her entire life? Can you prove the transubstantiation of wine in to Christ’s blood? I imagine somone has run sacremental wine through a spectrographic analyzer. How many parts per million were divine?

Your indictment of prophets as a flawed mechanism of communication between God and man was interesting. Do you really believe what you said? I feel God has used prophets successfully for thousands of years. Do you feel that could not happen again? Why?

I do appreciate your views. In the future I would get more out of our discussions and be more likely to consider your beliefs (and maybe even be enlightened by them) if you told me what you believe and not what I believe. I’ve never helped anyone come nearer to God by telling them how wrong they are. I feel I’ve helped many people get nearer to God by sharing what I believe and how I came to those beliefs.

G’nite dear. You can have the last word

 

[Allweather]

Are you suggesting that all catholic doctrine conforms to some precedent? Maybe you could give me some examples of ‘new’ catholic doctrine that actually conforms to previously established truth. I’m no expert on your religion but - can you help me understand how celibacy conforms to a divine precedant in your mind? Celibacy seems like a completely new, unprecedented way to live one’s life - quite contrary to the patterns God himself established from the get-go, in my opinion. I certainly respect your differing opinion.

Yes, all Catholic doctrine has precedent. Scripture and Tradition. The Bible, and what Jesus and the Apostles taught that wasn’t recorded therein.

Regarding celibacy, that is a rule of the Church that is firmly Scripturally stated by Paul. I won’t waste space quoting chapter and verse, I assume you’re familiar with Paul’s writings on this topic, but if not, we can go into detail. I agree that the norm for most people is marriage. But some people are called to a unique vocation of service that can involve a level of dedication that includes not marrying. Not all are called to marry, BTW. My best friend, a non-Christian, is 60 years old and never married. He tells me that he just never felt the urge to marry. I tell him he didn’t have the vocation for marriage. Most do. Some don’t.

But as far as the Catholic priesthood, which I assume is what you’re getting at, I’d invite you to explore this subject in detail so that you understand it better. Most people, including most Catholics, do not understand it very well.

When you tell me that I believe that ‘new revelation can come along any minute that will reverse direction from what had gone before.’ I’d like you to be more specific. Can you also give me some examples? I’d like to better know what you mean before sharing what I believe.

Polygamy, and Africans in the LDS priesthood.

I do believe God can do what he wants and is not constrained by mortal minds. If God showed up tomorrow in a '62 Coupe DeVille and had three heads would you argue with him? We should all surrender our wills and puny minds in the face of divine light. I have wondered if Mormon theology on things like the corporal nature of God turn out to be at least partially accurate - will Catholics argue with Him about it? 'But you can’t have a body of flesh and bone!" Seems rather silly to shut your mind to the possibility that we have not understood all that we thing we have understood.

I absolutely believe that God can do anything he wants. He certainly is NOT constrained by mortal minds. But if a being calling himself God showed up as you describe, I would not believe that it was God, and neither should you. Perhaps unintentionally you have described the precarious nature of Mormon thinking. God is not a God of confusion, and he doesn’t play tricks on us. He gave us the straight poop. He trained 12 men to lead His Church. He endowed them with His very authority, and commanded them to teach all that He taught them. The Bible goes into great detail about God’s nature, his life as Jesus, his death, resurrection, ascension, and a pretty intense description of his coming return. There is nothing in there about Cadillacs.

I hope my jocularity hasn’t offended. We are swinging wide of truly debatable issues. My over-arcing goal is to treat others’ beliefs with the same respect I hope they treat mine.

Your friend,

James.

It’s a pleasure to argue with you, friend. I likewise hope I haven’t offended.

 

[PaulDupre]

I’m no expert on your religion but - can you help me understand how celibacy conforms to a divine precedant in your mind? Celibacy seems like a completely new, unprecedented way to live one’s life - quite contrary to the patterns God himself established from the get-go, in my opinion.

Hi James,
First of all, priestly celibacy is not Catholic doctrine. It is a discipline which has been enacted in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, but is not practiced in other Catholic rites (ie; Byzantine Catholic, Maronite Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, etc all of which are in full communion with the Pope). Disciplines are enacted to help Church members (in this case clergy) to more fully live the gospel in a certain time and place. They can and do change, and are subject to exceptions. An example is that within the Latin Rite there are priests who are former Anglican priests who have converted to Catholicism and have been ordained as Catholic priests. They were married as Anglicans and are still married as Catholic priests.

Doctrines, on the other hand, are teachings from Jesus passed down through His apostles and their successors the bishops. These cannot change.

Secondly, there is strong precedent for celibacy in the New Testament.

Jesus taught the superiority of celibacy:

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matt 19:10-12)

St. Paul echoed this teaching and lived a celibate life himself:

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

…
But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. (1 Cor 7:1-9, 32-38)

You can see that the bible offers more than one righteous vocation. In Mormonism, marriage is a requirement for exaltation (D&C 132) - so much so that Mormon leaders teach that Jesus was polygamously married. The Catholic Church agrees with the bible - celibacy and marriage are both chaste and righteous paths to holiness.

Hope this helps,
Paul

 

[james71]

Paul - I’m signing off but I didn’t want to offend by ignoring your post. Thank your the the scriptures. My short response is that I (and many others) interpret those scriptures differently. For you, your opinion is superior. Not surprisingly, for me… well, I like mine. =) How then do we rectify two opposing interpretations of the same versus of scripture? A mormon would say you study it out, find out all that God has said on the topic and seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Many people have come to the same conclusion I have about the supremacy of the marriage relationship in God’s plan. Other people, like you, disagree. You and I should stay true to what we feel is right while always being open to the possibility of understanding more and better.

I personally feel those scriptures are taken out of context and your interpretation is inconsistent with the overwhelming ‘evidence’ to the contrary. I feel celibacy was not instituted by God or practiced among the Apostles and leaders of the early church - though such is only my speculation. We know some were married. I ask myself then 'Why didn’t Christ choose unmarried men if he wanted to set a precedent and establish a pattern of celibacy among his priesthood?" If celibacy is superior to marriage, why, when creating man in his own image did God create two beings, not one, who relied on each other to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’ Many ‘why’ questions are not knowable. Maybe this is one.

I can tell you that I know that my marriage is preparing me for heaven. I feel my wife and I moving together, more one and, together, closer to God, in ways that we never could having not known the joys of marriage and parenthood. I feel my family relationships can continue forever. ‘Until death do us part’ has never felt right for me. Do I feel celibate priests are ‘sinning’ by skipping marriage? No, unless you define sin as choosing to deprive yourself of all of the blessings available to you through God’s plan for your life.

Thanks for the thoughts. G’nite

BTW - Modern LDS leaders don’t teach that Jesus was polygamously married. We don’t know Jesus’ marital status. Some may have speculated on such. Polygamy in mormon history, in my mind, is not different than polygamy in Jewish history - a temporary construct for God’s purpose. You likely have a different opinion, which I respect. Check the official LDS website for our current understanding of polygamy.

 

[Allweather]

LOL, you dragged me back in with that one. I *was *going to bed.

Sorry… welcome to my addiction.

I can’t prove you wrong and I won’t try. Have you ever ‘proved’ anything to anyone on these forums in a way that changed them for the better?

I doubt it, but you never know. People are loathe to admit that they’ve been modified by an argument. I sure am. But I have been modified by arguments here, especially with Mormons. Religion is a process of conversion over time. I reckon God sometimes works in great leaps, but I’m pretty sure that most of the time he’s just working on people in little bits and pieces, allowing things to soak in. But you’re right about proof. Proof is hard to come by, especially when it comes to the Bible. Many interpretations are possible.

But reason is not why I believe. I believe because I feel the Spirit of Truth pricking my heart, continually confirming I am drawing nearer to God. Do you believe what you believe because it is provable? That to me is the set up for disaster. On what will you base your proof? Intellect? Emotion? Sight? Carbon dating? Prove to me God exists, my friend.

There is an aspect of concreteness, as well as an aspect of faith. I do not believe that God demands blind faith. The Bible is full of stories of God going way, way out of his way to demonstrate Himself to unbelievers, as well as believers. Jesus had Thomas probe the wounds with his fingers.

In the 1800 years between the Ascension and Joseph’s walk in the woods, there was much concrete evidence provided. Joseph, OTOH, didn’t even talk much about his First Vision until 12 years later, and then in fits and spurts that had each accounting differ from the others. There were no witnesses of Joseph’s vision, unlike the many witnesses of the risen Lord Jesus. So, I think we’re looking at a qualitative difference here. We’re not wondering whether God exists. We both know He does. But we disagree as to His nature, and whether He lied or was incompetent when He promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, and that He would be with us until the end of the world.

Can you prove that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin her entire life? Can you prove the transubstantiation of wine in to Christ’s blood? I imagine somone has run sacremental wine through a spectrographic analyzer. How many parts per million were divine?

Yes, these things can be proven from Scripture and Tradition. However, the interesting thing here is that Mormons usually will try to support their own doctrines by attacking the doctrines of Christianity. I know, brother, that you’re possibly unaware of your doing this now, but you are, I think. You will say you can’t prove that JS had a vision in the woods, and neither can I prove that the Blessed Virgin Mary was ever virgin. If we follow that line, we end up doubting the very existence of God. My opinion is that we follow the most likely.

Your indictment of prophets as a flawed mechanism of communication between God and man was interesting. Do you really believe what you said? I feel God has used prophets successfully for thousands of years. Do you feel that could not happen again? Why?

I don’t know much about prophets. This is a murky area for me. I was once talking to a guy about various things, which led into a subject of religion, at which point he announced to me that he was a prophet. It became clear that he was serious, and that he truly believed himself to be a prophet. Unfortunately, his “stuff” was strange, and so I doubt that he was anything but insane.

In general, I don’t think we need prophets. Everything we need to become saints is provided in the Catholic Church. We don’t need any new information. We’re having a hard enough time digesting the information that has already been given. I’m open to the possibility of new prophets. But I don’t think that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young were true prophets, mainly because they led away from the unity of the Church rather than towards it, and because some of their material was not Christian.

I do appreciate your views. In the future I would get more out of our discussions and be more likely to consider your beliefs (and maybe even be enlightened by them) if you told me what you believe and not what I believe.

Now we’re getting back to the catechism thing. If you want to know what I believe, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I believe all of it. Every word. I’m not smart enough to make up my own beliefs. As for what you believe, well, this is the area that needs to be filled in, since Mormons cover a pretty wide area of beliefs, there being no Mormon catechism and all.

Ahhh, I love having the last word…

 

[Allweather]

My short response is that I (and many others) interpret those scriptures differently.

Indeed. It is always the interpretations that lead to disagreements.

How then do we rectify two opposing interpretations of the same versus of scripture?

Oooo, good question! I think we start by examining the sources of these interpretations. Our Catholic interpretations are very old, ancient, in fact. We line things up with what Christians have always believed these Scriptures to mean. We don’t leap out of the boat into rough seas. Now, if your interpretations came along after, say, 1830, then it is a lot less likely that they are true, especially given the fact that they do NOT line up with the 1800 years that went before.

Many people have come to the same conclusion I have about the supremacy of the marriage relationship in God’s plan. Other people, like you, disagree.

Well, let’s say a man studied it out and concluded that God was calling him to the celibate priesthood. Didn’t you say that Mormons study things out, pray about them, and come to their own conclusions? And, just why is a Mormon concerned about the Catholic celibate priesthood? Isn’t that a particularly Protestant viewpoint?

I feel celibacy was not instituted by God or practiced among the Apostles and leaders of the early church - though such is only my speculation. We know some were married. I ask myself then 'Why didn’t Christ choose unmarried men if he wanted to set a precedent and establish a pattern of celibacy among his priesthood?" If celibacy is superior to marriage, why, when creating man in his own image did God create two beings, not one, who relied on each other to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’ Many ‘why’ questions are not knowable. Maybe this is one.

As you say, “some were married.” Some were not. Jesus was not. Jesus addressed this issue, and so did Paul. I don’t get where the claim is made that celibacy is “superior” to marriage. Marriage is the natural state for the vast majority of people. But not all. And not just in the religious realm. A West Point cadet cannot be married, or ever have been married. This is a discipline for a purpose. It doesn’t suggest that marriage is a second-class status, far from it. It is a discipline of military training in a particular place for a particular purpose. Most cadets get married eventually after they graduate. But not all do.

Check the official LDS website for our current understanding of polygamy.

What did the LDS church do before the internet, since they don’t have a catechism?

 

[mtr01]

After skimming this thread, I thought I’d post a couple of links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for your convenience:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
usccb.org/catechism/text/
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[PaulDupre]

BTW - Modern LDS leaders don’t teach that Jesus was polygamously married. We don’t know Jesus’ marital status. Some may have speculated on such. Polygamy in mormon history, in my mind, is not different than polygamy in Jewish history - a temporary construct for God’s purpose. You likely have a different opinion, which I respect. Check the official LDS website for our current understanding of polygamy.

Modern LDS leaders?? To a Catholic with 2000 years of Church History, anything after 1500 AD is “modern”.

Since the bible declares that the bride of Jesus is the Church, it is a wonder that any Mormon leader ever taught that Jesus had any other brides! Mormon leaders have taught that the wedding feast at Cana was Jesus’ own wedding. How then do they explain John’s gospel report that Jesus and his disciples were “also invited to that wedding”. Who gets invited to his own wedding?

God love you,
Paul

 

[Allweather]

Are you saying that an official body of early Christian leaders got together during the Council of Jerusalem and compared notes (written and oral) and decided among themselves what they felt God wanted to next? Please clarify if I have understood you incorrectly?

Acts 15 describes this. It includes a reference to Amos 9 in which the Prophet says that the gentiles will be converted. The discussion in Acts, though, refers mainly to the problem of requiring gentile converts to Christianity to first become Jews by getting circumcised and following dietary and other regulations. The Apostles regarded Scripture, as well as what was being revealed to them thru visions and dreams (see also the visions of Cornelius and Peter in Acts 10).

Mormon’s would say that the Lord’s will was revealed, clarified and made plain through inspiration and revelation to his authorized servants. Do you feel such an event is still considered possible to Catholics? I understand that many religions believe that direct revelation is a thing of the past. It was my understanding that Catholics believe that we don’t/can’t rely only on what was said in the past but that God continues to reveal his will to his Church.

It seems to me that yours and rmcmullan’s problem with this is that you’re seeing the revelations to the Apostles in isolation from Scripture and Tradition. It is clear that the OT foreshadows the inclusion of all mankind into the Church. It is clear that Jesus commanded the Apostles to carry the Gospel unto all men. When the Apostles regarded their visions, they compared these to what had already been revealed in Scripture, and thru the sayings of Jesus to them privately. So, both the OT and the NT witness the inclusion of gentiles. Revelations unto the Apostles confirm and elaborate. This isn’t NEW material. It is a fuller understanding of what had already been revealed.

That is how Catholics get their “revelation.” What comes today must match up with what has come before. Dreams and visions are great, and there are lots of them happening all the time. Some of them are judged worthy of attention by the Church, after study. Most are not. The main point to keep in mind is that there is an authoritative Church with authority to study and render judgements on these visions. Joseph Smith and the rest did not submit their visions to proper ecclesiastical judgement. It is obvious now that their visions were not valid, because they lead away from unity with the Church, and have features that are clearly not in accord with what has been revealed before, such as teachings regarding the nature of God.

 

[Allweather]

In thinking about what is the Litmus test for mormonality I have come up with a few indisputables I think, in order of importance.

1. Belief and worship of one God - God the Father, his Son and our Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.
2. Acceptance of and sincere effort to adhere to the Gospel’s teachings and commandments.
3. Belief in and reverence for the Holy Scriptures as the revealed word of God for the authoritative instruction and enlightenment of men (this includes all four books in the mormon canon.)
4. Acceptance of the divine calling of prophets and apostles, ancient and modern as God’s mouthpieces and representatives, in as much as they are able to truly represent God in guidance and leadership.

If you accept the first two you are Christian. If you accept all four of these tenants you are a Latter Day Saint - a subset of Christianity.

So, this is your own set of articles of faith. It kind of helps to make the point that Mormons are allowed to create their own creeds according to their own whims.

As for #1 it appears to ignore the plurality of gods teaching of Mormonism. It is too oversimplified. It needs much elaboration. When Mormons present their beliefs like this to Christians, it makes Christians think that Mormon gods are the same as the Christian God, which they are not.

Same thing with #2. It needs considerable elaboration to tell what “gospel” is being referred. This is where the catechism comes in.

LDS doesn’t have one, while the Catholic Church does, and it is very detailed. Everything the Catholic Church teaches is right out in the open. It isn’t necessary to dig through reams of material to find out what the Church teaches, and Catholics are not left to their own determinations as to how to live up to the teachings. Catholicism is orderly and systematic.

Interestingly, you know what you will find plenty of reference to in modern LDS literature? How you live your life. Our leaders spend the vast majority of their time instructing us and admonishing us to be a little better, to more faithfully emulate Christ’s example in how we treat others and how we honor God with our behavior. Like a medicine, Christianity improves us only as we internalize it and let it work within us. If you are abusing your wife or children, if you are stealing from your employer, if you are withholding your abundance from the needy - you won’t long be a Mormon nor has Christ truly penetrated your heart. I think that is what Mormons believe. Isn’t that what Christ taught would separate us at the last day - not our creeds or our banners - but our conduct?

I agree that Mormonism does a good job of teaching a type of morality. Although, once you peer into the cracks you see some cobwebs… one example being the Mormon teaching on abortion, which is really nothing more than an abdication of teaching responsibility, IMO. It cannot compare to the systematic, detailed teachings on abortion and birth control (flipsides of the same coin) of the Catholic Church, which makes no room for personal choice in the matter.

OTOH the use of coffee and tea are absolutely prohibited. Does that seem odd to you? It’s OK to kill the unborn babies for personal reasons, but there’s no question whatever about the use of coffee. Mormons are allowed to form their own creeds and theologies, but they aren’t allowed to even THINK about drinking a cup of coffee. Help me with with this. I’d like to understand this.

Based on my years as a Protestant, and knowing a bit about Mormonism, and knowing quite a few Mormons, I say without fear of being wrong, that Catholic moral teachings are far more demanding than any I’ve seen in any other religion. At the same time, they are tempered with the love of God, and his forgiveness, available through the sacraments.

 

[PaulDupre]

I’ve been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS for 20 years and I’ve never been taught that God had sex with Mary.

Does that mean that you are 20 years old? That would explain a lot. I have been an ex-Mormon for longer than you have been alive. And when I was LDS, we were taught that Heavenly Father had sex with Mary. The teaching was ubiquitous - in Gospel Doctrine manuals, priesthood manuals, it was even hinted at in Primary manuals. The prophets taught it to children. The missionaries who baptized me taught it to me. It was taught in a lecture given to my mission district in the Provo temple by the temple president. It’s hard to believe that you would not have been exposed to the writings of earlier Mormon leaders who were quite enthused by the subject. Back then all Mormons believed it. It was proudly proclaimed and frankly taken for granted.

The only reason it is not taught more widely now is because the Mormons are trying to appear “Christian”. This is new. When I was LDS we did not want to be called Christian. We agreed with Brigham Young that Christians were like the brute beasts of the field when it came to understanding the nature of God, and we did not want to be confused with them. Now the Mormons are trying to appear less strange and cultish - hoping to stem the flood of people leaving the LDS church and improve the dismal 3 - 5% convert retention rate.

I’ve been taught what you all have been taught from the same passages of scripture.

I seriously doubt that. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You will find that LDS and Catholic teachings have little in common.

I guarantee there will be nothing about God having sex with Mary among official church publications.

Maybe not the ones published these days. It might scare away potential converts. But in my day it was everywhere, including the Ensign.

You will also be hard pressed to find anything about God’s genitalia. (I thought that was a really crude remark and again rather inflammatory.)

Now you are being really disingenuous. It is a tenant of your faith that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man’s. Joseph Smith taught that God the Father is a resurrected human being. So why would he not have glorified and perfected human genitalia? You have to accept the logical inferences of your theology.

All of the Mormon leaders have taught that God the Father had sex with Mary. It is in so many Mormon publications that you could not count them all. I remember well my son’s Primary manual that had this little gem:

Daddy + Mommy = You
Heavenly Father + Mary = Jesus

If you are not familiar with this teaching, either you are in denial or you are simply not well read and unaware of your church’s history and theology.

Don’t try to snow us, my friend. Too many of us have been there.

God bless you,
Paul

 

[Lehl]

Oh, WOW PaulDupre and AllWeather. I’m in LOVE!

Such eloquence. Such excellent posts.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’ve been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS for 20 years and I’ve never been taught that God had sex with Mary. I’ve never been taught He didn’t. I’ve been taught what you all have been taught from the same passages of scripture. Have I heard latter day saints speculate on the topic? Rarely. Have priesthood holders of the past in various capacities speculated in public about this topic?
James.

It is ironic that you are defending against this belief, as earlier in mormon history defense of this belief can be found.

Look at it this way, if mormonism is a train that has been traveling since it’s conception, there are passengers on board that remember being places that you have not been. You climb on board the train and claim that the train was never in those places because you were never there yourself. Is this a logical way to view the world? Can’t entire histories, facts and truths be wiped out, just because “you weren’t there”?

At any rate, I can easily find several references that clearly, undeniably, without question proclaim what mormons believe. Omitting these beliefs from your religious education does not make them any less factual.

Here's just one reference from "Messages Of The First Presidency", by James R. Clark 1901-1915 © 1970 by Bookcraft, Inc.

A teaching that you apparently missed because you weren’t a mormon in 1970. Well, I was a mormon in 1970 so I was taught this, in every church education system there was. And this is not “speculation”, it is a teaching by what you believe to be a Prophet of God. And as a mormon in 1970, I was taught to believe what the Prophet of God had to say about such important matters. Here you go…

Quote:

327This sermon and doctrinal discourse on the literalness of the Sonship of Jesus Christ is an extremely important addition to L.D.S. doctrinal literature. Its contents should be carefully studied in connection with the statement of the First Presidency of 1909 on the Origin of Man and of the letter to Samuel O. Bennion in 1912 appearing earlier in this volume. It should also be read in connection with the doctrinal statement of the First Presidency of June 30, 1916, entitled “The Father and The Son; A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve.”

…"You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers you all know that don’t you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. This is nonsense. Why will not the world receive the truth? Why will they not believe the Father when he says that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son? Why will they try to explain this truth away and make mystery of it?
gospelink.com/resources/gospelink/paralink.gif…329Now, little boys and girls, when you are confronted by infidels in the world who know nothing of how Christ was begotten, you can say he was born just as the infidel was begotten and born, so was Christ begotten by his Father, who is also our Father-the Father of our spirits-and he was born of his mother Mary.
gospelink.com/resources/gospelink/paralink.gif329The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death; but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven. Therefore Jesus, as he declared, received the power of life from his Father and was never subject unto death but had life in himself as his father had life in himself. Because of this power he overcame death and the grave and became master of the resurrection and the means of salvation to us all.
gospelink.com/resources/gospelink/paralink.gif329Shall we as Latter-day Saints deny the truth and then claim that God made man in his likeness in the beginning? Shall we come under the impression that God possesses the power of creation, and yet did not literally create? He is not without his companion any more than I am without my companion, the mother of my children.

 

[Chris-WA]

BTW - Modern LDS leaders don’t teach that Jesus was polygamously married. We don’t know Jesus’ marital status. .

Are you kidding? We don’t know Jesus marital status? Do you really think there is the possibility that Jesus could have been married, yet scripture and historians failed to record it? I’m sorry, but that one is way too big to have been missed. If Jesus was married, it would have been recorded. In case there is any confusion out there–Jesus was not married. If he was you would have to believe there was a conspiracy by the early church to conceal it, and that is just plain rediculous. Yes, I understand that many things Jesus said and did were not recorded, but be reasonable here. If Jesus was married, we would know about it.

 

[Chris-WA]

As for a catechism, check the Articles of Faith (scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1)). I thought those were pretty well known but maybe not.

Definitions, definitions, definitions. Definitions are so important, and unfortunately the LDS Articles of Faith do not provide them. Gee I wish the LDS church had an official catechism that thoroughly explained the details behind each of the articles, for that is how doctrine could be clearly defined.

 

[james71]

As I stated before, I’ve been an active and engaged member of the LDS church for 20 years. I was born in 1971 and raised in an inactive LDS family. My father was atheist. I went to the LDS church a few times as a child. I certainly don’t recall anyone giving a lesson on “How Baby Jesus Was Made.” When I was 15 and very unsure if God even existed I felt that was a question I really needed to answer for myself before I left the planet someday (God’s existence, not how Jesus was made.) The effort to answer my question led to a profound love for my Savior and a reverence for His gospel. I became a new person and I dedicated my life to Him from then on. The same power that drew me to Jesus drew me to what I believe is the Church closest to his ideals and teachings. I feel that power continues to pull me closer to Him and the LDS church.

When I said that the LDS church doesn’t teach that God had sex with Mary - that was a sincere description of my understanding. I’m not trying to “Snow” anyone. Why would I? When I conceded that a few LDS leaders had speculated on how a physical God would accomplish the birth of His Son - I was referring to the only text I knew of that sort of explored this idea - “Jesus the Christ” by James Talmage which I read on my mission. So, if nothing else I’d prefer you stop insinuating that I am being purposefully deceptive.

I’ve now read the links posted here and done some research on my own. While the church certainly doesn’t talk about such an awkward subject any more, I can’t deny that it appears we did spend a lot of time talking about it in the past. Though I don’t recall ever having read any of those quotes, they do not appear falsely represented or out of context. I agree that our leaders have talked a lot about something that seems crude and unnecessary to me. I admit reading them made me furrow my brow a bit and wonder “Why in the heck would you even talk about that?” It seems totally superfluous and irrelevant to 99% of what we really DO need to understand about God and his plan. Not sure I would have said those things… but I wasn’t there.

Note that I’ve described those remarks as awkward, crude and unnecessary… but I didn’t say false. **Flame-away **- but I don’t believe those statements to be completely false - nor did I ever deny in my previous posts that some sort of physical union occurred so that God could beget his Only Begotten. I did say that the church doesn’t teach that ‘God had sex with Mary’ today - and we don’t. I didn’t realize that we *were *so unwise and insensitive as to blast to the world such an inflammatory deduction upon which the scriptures are sacredly silent. I wish we wouldn’t have.

So then what? Did God ‘git in ON!’ with Mary? The fact the I even ask such a question reveals to me why the Scriptures are silent on this topic. What good can come out of such a conversation? Nothing. My mind is too small to understand how it happened. I do not believe God made love to Mary, which is what I think is the blasphemy contended here. I do believe that God the Father *is *the literal father of his Only Begotten - else why the Begotten? In *our *puny world with its developing knowledge of the mechanics of life and medical technology is there more than one way to create a baby besides sex? There is. Is there then also another way for an all powerful God to become Incarnate? I think so.

When you run out of kerosene - I *would *like the Catholic explanation of how the chromosomes and molecules that made Jesus’ physical body came to be present in Mary’s womb. I admit that I get lost in the flowery language sometimes used when Catholics try to explain a “Mystery.” I’m a simple man. I need simple words. How then, did it happen?

Reverently yours

James

 

[majick275]

your youth and inactive family explains your LDS experience. I believe that you are sincere in what you have stated. However, I can certainly assure that these things were not only discussed and taught vigorously in the past but were thought to be of extreme importance. Brigham Young and Orson Pratt were not the only ones to go into great detail on this. Joseph fielding smith did too. the nature of God is considered important even now to GBH. Why? the “plan of salvation”. for eternal progression to fully work then God must have been mortal before and must continue on as “superhuman”. That way the family as defined by mormons does continue forever in a way that they understand. the abrahamic promise of eternal increase is to keep having children forever. consistency requires then that these children must also have an “earth” where they can obtain physical bodies. they would also need a savior. then they would (if exalted) repeat this cycle.

as to your question on how did Jesus become “fully man”? a miracle. Mary conceived by the power of the holy spirit. Just as Jesus told the jews that God could raise up seed to abraham from the stones, God caused a human fetus to grow in Mary. By this miracle God himself came down to us and Jesus was fully human and fully divine at the same time.

 

[zerinus]

As I stated before, I’ve been an active and engaged member of the LDS church for 20 years. I was born in 1971 and raised in an inactive LDS family. My father was atheist. I went to the LDS church a few times as a child. I certainly don’t recall anyone giving a lesson on “How Baby Jesus Was Made.” When I was 15 and very unsure if God even existed I felt that was a question I really needed to answer for myself before I left the planet someday (God’s existence, not how Jesus was made.) The effort to answer my question led to a profound love for my Savior and a reverence for His gospel. I became a new person and I dedicated my life to Him from then on. The same power that drew me to Jesus drew me to what I believe is the Church closest to his ideals and teachings. I feel that power continues to pull me closer to Him and the LDS church.

When I said that the LDS church doesn’t teach that God had sex with Mary - that was a sincere description of my understanding. I’m not trying to “Snow” anyone. Why would I? When I conceded that a few LDS leaders had speculated on how a physical God would accomplish the birth of His Son - I was referring to the only text I knew of that sort of explored this idea - “Jesus the Christ” by James Talmage which I read on my mission. So, if nothing else I’d prefer you stop insinuating that I am being purposefully deceptive.

I’ve now read the links posted here and done some research on my own. While the church certainly doesn’t talk about such an awkward subject any more, I can’t deny that it appears we did spend a lot of time talking about it in the past. Though I don’t recall ever having read any of those quotes, they do not appear falsely represented or out of context. I agree that our leaders have talked a lot about something that seems crude and unnecessary to me. I admit reading them made me furrow my brow a bit and wonder “Why in the heck would you even talk about that?” It seems totally superfluous and irrelevant to 99% of what we really DO need to understand about God and his plan. Not sure I would have said those things… but I wasn’t there.

Note that I’ve described those remarks as awkward, crude and unnecessary… but I didn’t say false. **Flame-away **- but I don’t believe those statements to be completely false - nor did I ever deny in my previous posts that some sort of physical union occurred so that God could beget his Only Begotten. I did say that the church doesn’t teach that ‘God had sex with Mary’ today - and we don’t. I didn’t realize that we *were *so unwise and insensitive as to blast to the world such an inflammatory deduction upon which the scriptures are sacredly silent. I wish we wouldn’t have.

So then what? Did God ‘git in ON!’ with Mary? The fact the I even ask such a question reveals to me why the Scriptures are silent on this topic. What good can come out of such a conversation? Nothing. My mind is too small to understand how it happened. I do not believe God made love to Mary, which is what I think is the blasphemy contended here. I do believe that God the Father *is *the literal father of his Only Begotten - else why the Begotten? In *our *puny world with its developing knowledge of the mechanics of life and medical technology is there more than one way to create a baby besides sex? There is. Is there then also another way for an all powerful God to become Incarnate? I think so.

When you run out of kerosene - I *would *like the Catholic explanation of how the chromosomes and molecules that made Jesus’ physical body came to be present in Mary’s womb. I admit that I get lost in the flowery language sometimes used when Catholics try to explain a “Mystery.” I’m a simple man. I need simple words. How then, did it happen?

Reverently yours

James

Hi James, good to see you around. The idea that Jesus was born through the physical union of God the Father and Mary was taught by some early Church leaders; but it is not taught in the standard works of the Church, and it is not the official doctrine of the Church, and it is not true. The book of Mormon clearly states that Jesus was conceived miraculously by the power of the Holy Ghost, not in any other way (Alma 7:10). That has never been the official doctrine of the Church. Those who had taught it in the past were wrong to have done so.

zerinus

 

[Lehl]

Hi James, good to see you around. The idea that Jesus was born through the physical union of God the Father and Mary was taught by some early Church leaders; but it is not taught in the standard works of the Church, and it is not the official doctrine of the Church, and it is not true. The book of Mormon clearly states that Jesus was conceived miraculously by the power of the Holy Ghost, not in any other way (Alma 7:10). That has never been the official doctrine of the Church. Those who had taught it in the past were wrong to have done so.

zerinus

Again, so what is the value of a “prophet to lead you in these latter-days” if they’ve proven to be wrong on so many things?

 

[Chris-WA]

I’ve now read the links posted here and done some research on my own. While the church certainly doesn’t talk about such an awkward subject any more, I can’t deny that it appears we did spend a lot of time talking about it in the past. Though I don’t recall ever having read any of those quotes, they do not appear falsely represented or out of context. I agree that our leaders have talked a lot about something that seems crude and unnecessary to me. I admit reading them made me furrow my brow a bit and wonder “Why in the heck would you even talk about that?” It seems totally superfluous and irrelevant to 99% of what we really DO need to understand about God and his plan. Not sure I would have said those things… but I wasn’t there.

Note that I’ve described those remarks as awkward, crude and unnecessary… but I didn’t say false.

But those teachings are false. Even Zerinus concedes that point. So the important question now becomes–if LDS prophets, who are supposed to teach truth, teach falsehoods to the flock on any particular religious subject, what else were they wrong about? How do you distinguish between when the same prophet teaches truth and when he teaches falsehood? If he teaches falsehood regarding religious matters, is he then really a prophet, or is he a false prophet?