Mormons, please set the record straight

[Alma147]

A rather dishonest answer, from the Mormon perspective. Your “prophet” felt quite strongly that Jesus was the product of sexual intercourse between Mary and Elohim.

Well, if you think me dishonest, demonstrate it by presenting something even quasi authoritative from an LDS source. I came across this passage reading from our prophet Ezra Taft Benson who noted, “He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Ne. 11:20.)” (December Ensign 1993, First Presidency Message.)

Alma

 

[Alma147]

Will one of you kind LDS folks explain to me how, in the very strict Victorian era USA, Joseph Smith was able to morally explain his development of plural spouses? I have met and been friends with many LDS people and they too, were at a loss for words concerning Mormon marriage in the 19th Century. My other question is about the LDS view of Heaven. If I was LDS and a single woman, where would I go without a God/Husband? I read on a blog that single women such as myself were truly losers in the eyes of LDS theology and I would be given to a family on either the second or third heavenly planet to be a maid. Oh my. If someone would explain, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance for answering, I’m sure many Mormons also think that the Catholic Church also has many theological practices and beliefs that are hard to comprehend.

I wouldn’t put much stock in that blog’s credibility.

As far as Joseph Smith being able to explain plural wives in that cultural milieu, (leaving aside for the moment that people believed he was a prophet), I think all he needed to do was appeal to the Bible and the instances of plural marriage among men and prophets such as Abraham (the friend of God) and Jacob (the father of the house of Israel), that God’s command that a man was required to marry his brother’s widow if his brother died without children (irrespective of whether or not he already had a spouse), or the simple passages in scripture allowing plurality of wives (Exodus 21:10 “If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.”), or simply noting plural wives without condemnation: “And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.” (1 Sam. 1:2) were sufficient to demonstrate that God allowed some deviations from the cultural norm of the day. He was able to show from scripture that God not only allowed but in some instances commanded the practice.

People have noted that this wasn’t a situation of Joseph Smith announcing that they were going to throw out moral concepts. George Bernard Shaw offered his opinion that Joseph Smith was nothing less than devoutly religious in his attempt to implement plural marriage among equally devout followers:

Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.

I think it’s interesting that the statutes that were enacted to stamp out Mormon polygamy took steps to allow men to have mistresses but forbade plural wives. All Mormons had to do to avoid prosecution was to claim that their wives were mistresses and they would have been safe from prosecution. The laws required that a man be charged only if he lived with more than one woman “in the marriage relation.”

Mormons believe that all women will have the opportunity to marry for eternity. That if that does not occur in this life, that she will be given the opportunity of marriage before the resurrection and children in eternity. That stuff about being a maid on a planet is bunk.

Alma

 

[Ernie07]

Alma

Hi Alma,

I don’t know much about the Mormon faith so I was just wondering if you believe in what I would call the core tenets of the Christian faith…Jesus is 2nd person in the Trinity, Jesus born of virgin Mary, Jesus fully man/fully God, Jesus 1 person with 2 natures (divine and human), Jesus died for our sins, Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus ascended into heaven, Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead.

No trick questions, I truly don’t know the answers. Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Vonsalza]

Well, if you think me dishonest, demonstrate it by presenting something even quasi authoritative from an LDS source.

Fair enough.

“The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood–was begotten
of his father, as we were of our fathers.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).
(emphasis mine)

Was Brigham Young non-authoritative within your group?

I understand fully why there’s been so much revision in Mormon texts - especially in the last thirty years. There’s just so much in older texts that does not “stand up”.

I’ve enjoyed the experience of comparing contemporary copies of the BoM with those produced in the 50s. There’s been quite a few attempts to hide the painfully obvious anachronisms Joe Smith wrote into his fairy-tale.

 

[Alma147]

Hi Alma,

I don’t know much about the Mormon faith so I was just wondering if you believe in what I would call the core tenets of the Christian faith…Jesus is 2nd person in the Trinity, Jesus born of virgin Mary, Jesus fully man/fully God, Jesus 1 person with 2 natures (divine and human), Jesus died for our sins, Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus ascended into heaven, Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead.

No trick questions, I truly don’t know the answers. Thanks.

-Ernie-

Everything seems kosher with the list except I’m not sure how to understand the 2 natures comment. I’m still unsure how Catholics (or Mormons for that matter) consider two natures. We believe that Jesus Christ is the God of Israel, that He was still God while living on earth; and that he was tempted in all things yet without sin.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

Fair enough.

“The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood–was begotten
of his father, as we were of our fathers.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).
(emphasis mine)

Was Brigham Young non-authoritative within your group?

Brigham Young is very authoritative–the Journal of Discourses not as much. The JD was a privately published, serialized newspaper in England–not subject to Church control. The 26 volume set you’re apparently referencing was compiled by the FLDS Church and published by them. I would not consider the JD an authoritative LDS source.

I understand fully why there’s been so much revision in Mormon texts - especially in the last thirty years. There’s just so much in older texts that does not “stand up.”

Apparently you’re blowing just so much smoke. What revision can you point to in Mormon texts in the last 30 years–or 40–or sixty for that matter? In 1980 the LDS Church published a new edition of the Book of Mormon that was an effort to bring it into conformity with the original manuscript and with edits made by Joseph Smith. Perhaps you could demonstrate something that doesn’t “stand up” as you put it?

I’ve enjoyed the experience of comparing contemporary copies of the BoM with those produced in the 50s. There’s been quite a few attempts to hide the painfully obvious anachronisms Joe Smith wrote into his fairy-tale.

Given the fact that the Book of Mormon produced by the Church in the 50’s was exactly the same as that produced throughout the church since 1921, perhaps you can point to one of these “painfully obvious anachronisms” that has been changed?

Alma

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Alma,

I don’t know much about the Mormon faith so I was just wondering if you believe in what I would call the core tenets of the Christian faith…Jesus is 2nd person in the Trinity, Jesus born of virgin Mary, Jesus fully man/fully God, Jesus 1 person with 2 natures (divine and human), Jesus died for our sins, Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus ascended into heaven, Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead.

No trick questions, I truly don’t know the answers. Thanks.

-Ernie-

Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. In fact they spend time and effort against this central Christian doctrine.

Sometimes they’ll say they do, at these times, they’re hammering the square peg of Mormon doctrine into the round hole of Christianity, and are obfuscating.

 

[Alma147]

Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. In fact they spend time and effort against this central Christian doctrine.

Sometimes they’ll say they do, at these times, they’re hammering the square peg of Mormon doctrine into the round hole of Christianity, and are obfuscating.

Well Ernie, there you have it. I thought that all the time I spent as a Mormon, teaching LDS theology at a University level for the LDS Church for nearly 30 years, that I would have understood more about LDS theology than Rebecca. I guess I ought to write to the LDS Church and ask them to remove the chapter “God and the Holy Trinity” in the book by LDS apostle James Talmage, The Articles of Faith.

Alma

 

[Fiasco]

Fiasco, you might consider that there’s another reason for Mormons appearing cagey in their response. I would be hesitant to give a yes or no answer to your question because I wouldn’t want you to misunderstand the LDS perspective.

In that case, where can we obtain responses which honestly reflect LDS teaching, and which have to be held by all LDS members? There’s a heavy fog hanging over this topic.

Good question. I don’t know and I don’t think anyone else does Mormon or Catholic.

The Catholic Church has a deep understanding of the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity.
One way in which Man is made in God’s image, and SHOULD reflect the inner Life of God, is in marriage and family life. Total self-giving between husband and wife. The reason contraception is evil is tied to this: the self-giving is NOT total.

The Church says that God is eternal. He IS in one eternal act of “ISSING”. He’s outside of space and time. Being Spirit “only”, He’s not bound by material limitations. He’s everywhere only in the sense that His will keeps everything in existence. Again, being Spirit, He’s immutable. He** IS in the eternal NOW**, no before and after.
From His perspective, everything is eternal.

The Father is the uncaused Cause, Self-existent. The Son is the Father’s Self-Knowledge, generated in eternity. The Holy Spirit is the Love between Father and Son, the “Breath of God”. As has been said by some, there’s “companionship at the level of Divinity”, yet “only” one God, lacking nothing, Self-sufficient, Self-contained.
**God is He Who Is, as He said to Moses.
**
Hardly scratching the surface.

If you want to read some deep material which explains the doctrine of the Trinity better than i ever could, please ask. There’s material available online.

Another good question. I don’t think anyone knows. But our canon states that Mary was a virgin after Jesus was born.

Matthew and Luke indicate that Mary’s conceiving of her Son was a miracle, nothing physical.

Everything seems kosher with the list except I’m not sure how to understand the 2 natures comment. I’m still unsure how Catholics (or Mormons for that matter) consider two natures. We believe that Jesus Christ is the God of Israel, that He was still God while living on earth; and that he was tempted in all things yet without sin.

Adam, the offender, was/is a mere man, but the Offendee (apparently a legit word!) is God.
A mere man couldn’t atone for Adam’s sin, so the atoning Sacrifice was done by the Son with His Divine nature plus a human nature with a human will. He suffered and died in His human nature.

 

[Tarquin]

Brigham Young is very authoritative–the Journal of Discourses not as much. The JD was a privately published, serialized newspaper in England–not subject to Church control. The 26 volume set you’re apparently referencing was compiled by the FLDS Church and published by them. I would not consider the JD an authoritative LDS source.

The set I have was published, privately or not, by George Q. Cannon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints under the authority of Brigham Young (up to the 19th volume), which set Cannon identifies as one of the “standard works.” When I asked Mormons about this - many Mormons - several years back, they *all *believed these were divinely inspired words, “deep,” not for the uninitiated or outsiders, and even more revealing and sacred than the Book of Mormon.

The Journal of Discourses - as published by Apostle George Q. Cannon, co-member of the First Presidency along with Brigham Young, - apparently at the Latter Day Saints’ Book Depot (some if not all), was, if not under Church control, then at least under the control of Brigham Young.

Although I would not be too surprised to learn the FLDS have published an edition of the original Journals of Discourse, I have not yet had access to a set. While it would have bee incorrect to say so during Brigham Young’s administration, it is correct today to say the Journal of Discourses is not authoritative. The speakers are long dead, and dead prophets have little standing in the Mormon church except where they agree with the current prophet.

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

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well Ernie, there you have it. I thought that all the time I spent as a Mormon, teaching LDS theology at a University level for the LDS Church for nearly 30 years

Which makes your attempts at obsfucation even more of a bad behavior. That, or you have no familiarity with Christian doctrine and have gone through life believing Mormons believe in the same God of Christianity.

that I would have understood more about LDS theology than Rebecca. I guess I ought to write to the LDS Church and ask them to remove the chapter “God and the Holy Trinity” in the book by LDS apostle James Talmage, The Articles of Faith.

Alma

“Holy Trinity” for a Mormon is something entirely different than for a Christian. (Which is a relatively new adoption, and redefinition, by Mormonism of a Christian term.)

For example:

Mormon: “We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings.”

Christian: “We believe in one God”

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Journal of Discourses - as published by Apostle George Q. Cannon, co-member of the First Presidency along with Brigham Young,

For what it’s worth, George Q. Cannon’s bookstore became Deseret Book, which is the bookstore wholly owned today by the LDS Church, and from which all Mormon publications, in print, can be purchased. Including the “Journal of Discourses”…for $500.

 

[RebeccaJ]

In addition, when a Mormon says “scripture” there are extra books involved that are not accepted as scripture by any but Mormons. Extra-Biblical teachings through which the Bible is filtered. Though, the Book of Mormon itself, in its original form, was Trinitarian or something close. The plurality of gods coming later in Smith’s career. It is “self-evident” to a Mormon that there are multiple gods, because the extra-Biblical Book of Abraham spells out the Mormon doctrine of plurality of gods, explicitly.

 

[Vonsalza]

Brigham Young is very authoritative–the Journal of Discourses not as much.

I laughed a bit when I read it. Sometimes your 2nd “prophet” is authoritative, sometimes he isn’t. Quite an adjustable yardstick you have there.

Perhaps you could demonstrate something that doesn’t “stand up” as you put it?

Of course. It’s the bane of Mormonism. The BoM refers to Nephites and Lamanites having silk, steel, barley, wheat, sheep, horses, cows, pigs and honey. There is zero evidence that these existed in the Americas until Europeans brought them. Elephant-like species in the Americas had been dead for thousands of years by the time the events in the BoM took place. And the language of “Reformed Egyptian”? It’s never been observed by anyone who wasn’t a Mormon.
Good grief, the most damning evidence of all is the complete and utter lack of middle-eastern DNA found in any pre-Columbian people. I have Neanderthal DNA within me and they’ve been gone for over 40,000 years!

Given the fact that the Book of Mormon produced by the Church in the 50’s was exactly the same as that produced throughout the church since 1921, perhaps you can point to one of these “painfully obvious anachronisms” that has been changed?

I’m amazed you asked. One easy example : Church removes racial references in Book of Mormon headings

Despite the fact that Joe “The Huckster” Smith called the BoM “The Most Perfect Book Ever Written”, it’s been changed NUMEROUS times. Your school in Utah even offers a class called “Understanding Changes in the BoM”.

Of course, this doesn’t jive with Smith’s claim of the book’s perfection. He was dictated the book and wrote it, with divine aid, “word-for-word, letter-for-letter” while sticking his face in that hat and listening to a couple of rocks.

With the release of the latest revision of the BoM, I seem to recall folks leaving your “church” en masse. They realized what an utter sham Mormonism is when Smith’s “word-for-word, letter-for-letter” revelation from God has required so many changes so many times.

Truly, Mormonism is a complete fabrication. It only exists today because people innately seek something transcendent to bind them together as a “tribe”; even if that something is an obvious fiction.

 

[Horton]

Two points. Two questions for the LDS. If the LDS believe this - “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” then why haven’t they translated it “correctly” by now? Can the LDS use any copy of the KJV or must they have LDS version of the KJV Bible? These are simple questions therefore only need a simple response.

My second point is to the non-LDS on this thread. It is practically useless to get any LDS to come to consensus with any Christian, especially Catholics. If an LDS starts to question any part of LDS doctrine/teaching/belief may cause him/her to question other parts. To do so would mean the loss of the “testimony” and possibly their faith in the LDS. Many may do so in the privacy of their own minds, but very few would speak out to others.

 

[Fiasco]

A frustrating, fizzled-out thread!

EWTN’s Marcus Grodi-hosted “The Coming Home Network” has some testimonies from former Mormons. There might be something useful there. The testimonies would be honest, and** from the Church’s viewpoint!.**

For a start:

uryoutube.com/watch?v=Ihf7FOu-JHM

Haven’t watched any of these.
i’m no good at posting links, but it worked from here.

 

[jimkhong]

I think this idea may arise because we place an emphasis on the BoM and because we acknowledge that there are translation errors in the Bible. Of course, there are also a few translation errors in the BoM.

Would you know which translation errors these are and do you correct for it?

Also, do Mormons still believe in specific planets where God lives? I have asked some of your itinerant preachers but they didn’t know anything about it.

I understand that Mormons do not believe Jesus to be an equal to God the Father like Trinitarian Christians do. So, how do you view the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Christians see a complete and painful sacrifice that God himself feels as a man - this is the basis of our idea of redemption by the all-powerful God. Does Mormons see the sacrifice by a lesser God meaning that God himself did not experience the pain and death on the cross?

Thank you for answering questions. I just have to note that I am disappointed that when I asked I often get pre-vetted standard answers. I can understand the reason as you need to be careful with so much Mormon-bashing around by Christians (even in this forum) but it makes it difficult for me to have an engaging and sincere discussion. I normally preface my discussions with Mormosn with the point I am inquiring just to know about Mormonism and that is extremely unlikely I will be converting.

 

[jimkhong]

I am not a Mormon but I don’t like the tone of your post. “Drop that nonsense” is insulting to say the least. It is no way to have a real discussion about Mormon beliefs.

It would be like asking me, “Have you quit worshiping Mary or did the Church drop all that nonsense?”

It is simply a way to start a fight.

 

[jimkhong]

We do believe that Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them–more worlds than a human could count–but we don’t accept creatio ex nihilo, so there’s reason to be cautious in responding to your question.

So what is the difference between the creation ex nihilo and Mormon understanding of the Creation? As I understand Mormons believe that it was Jesus the Son who created the universe we see. Does this mean the Mormons do not believe that the Father did not create the said universe? If so, did the Father create anything then? Was there any reason why Jesus was the creator of the universe and not the Father?

 

[jimkhong]

Guys can we respect the request of the OP. This should not be a battlefield of argument of who is right and who is wrong. We want to hear from Mormons so that we can understand them better. Trying to prove them wrong has led us to this situation that few non-Mormons have really heard what the Mormons have to say as many Mormons just get exasperated and clamp up.

Please respect the OP. If you want an argument can you please start your own thread as OP and you can set your own agenda to argue to prove yourself right if you so wish.

I can understand if any Mormon do not wish to reply in this thread which would be sad but understandable. Perhaps then you can provide me some answers by pm? My questions so far as follows:

Would you know which translation errors these are and do you correct for it?

Also, do Mormons still believe in specific planets where God lives? I have asked some of your itinerant preachers but they didn’t know anything about it.

I understand that Mormons do not believe Jesus to be an equal to God the Father like Trinitarian Christians do. So, how do you view the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Christians see a complete and painful sacrifice that God himself feels as a man - this is the basis of our idea of redemption by the all-powerful God. Does Mormons see the sacrifice by a lesser God meaning that God himself did not experience the pain and death on the cross?

So what is the difference between the creation ex nihilo and Mormon understanding of the Creation? As I understand Mormons believe that it was Jesus the Son who created the universe we see. Does this mean the Mormons do not believe that the Father did not create the said universe? If so, did the Father create anything then? Was there any reason why Jesus was the creator of the universe and not the Father?