Question for Mormons

[croix_de_fer]

From PopeBono: //“Satan never received his body, he did not inherit his first estate as talked about in Corinthians so he is not a brother to us in the human form (humanity) whereas Christ who received his body is a brother to us.”//

Right, I never said Mormons believe Satan received his body nor did I imply it. But I did say Mormons believe Satan and Jesus were spiritual brothers as well as spiritual brothers to us. I know Mormons also believe Christ was a humanly brother to humans too since he took flesh. My question is:* Is not our spirit the essence of who we truly are?* Without our bodies we can still exist - in fact we did according to LDS before God made earth and humans. But without our spirits then our bodies are nothing more than organic shells.* If the answer is “yes”*: there would have to be a fundamental importance of Satan being equally our brother as is Jesus, and Jesus and Satan are equally brothers to themselves as they are to us. This fundamental importance supersedes any concept or objective human “brotherhood”.
Therefore the whole belief/doctrine/notion that Satan and Jesus spiritual brothers is incomprehensible because how can someone as perfect as Christ have a spiritual kinship with another “being” that obviously had the propensity of becoming an evil entity in the extremist sense…which is what ended up happening when he denied God. That is one of the fundamental problems Christians have in accepting it. We believe and can understand Lucifer and other angels falling and becoming evil when they denied God, but it is inconceivable for Christ our Savior, whom is most Holy, loving and perfect, to be a spiritual brother of an entity so potentially flawed in the beginning and ultimately became flawed. The whole notion actually belittles Christ and His nature. It is preposterous, sick and blasphemous. Nowhere in the Bible does it hint that Jesus and Satan were spiritual brothers, NOR does Christ hint at it.

*//“we have said nothing about Hitler, Ted Bundy etc… you are making statements that no church leader has ever made rather you are taking our doctrine and mingling it with your own theories and dragging out some of the most brutal people in history and somehow trying to apply it to our doctrine.”// *

It’s a Strawman argument. I never said Mormons discussed Hilter, Stalin, Bundy etc per se, rather I said Mormons believe these three goons will enter the lowest level of Heaven according to your doctrine. Don’t believe me or your own religion? Check out your own website and scroll down to the paragraph of Telestial Kingdom.

//“We do not believe in following Joseph Smiths Words will get us to heaven. We know that through Christ and Christ alone is our pathway to heaven.”//

Here you took my statement out of context, perhaps the statement needed more clarity. I am merely pointing out that Mormons believe their god has revealed “truth” to Joseph Smith. Following this “truth” revealed to J. Smith, which includes Christ as the only salvation, is the only way to the Celestial Kingdom (highest level of Heaven). IS it true Mormons believe the second level of Heaven is for people whom don’t necessarily accept Mormon doctrine but are still good people? In this second level, they can only be with Jesus but NOT both Jesus and the Father as in the highest level? If the answer is “yes”, then what does that say about what you believe about Jesus? Is He somehow substandard to the Father, which explains why good NON-Mormons can be with him only but NOT the Father in Heaven?

//"We believe in only one creator God…"//

Wait don’t you believe in three separate Gods? God the Father - the main Godhead, and then Jesus and the Holy Ghost as lesser Gods?.. two of whom are creator Gods - the Father and separately Jesus?

//"…but there may be other titled beings with the name god who are subject to the Almighty God."//

Oh so now there “MAY” be beings with the name god. Either there IS or there IS NOT… which is it? LDS teaches the righteous Mormon men on earth whom are worthy will pass onto the afterlife as gods with their own worlds…or is LDS changing this teaching now too? This is not a rhetorical question…please answer. Speaking of changing beliefs, didn’t LDS change their beliefs/teachings about polygamy?

//In regards to Mary your comments are correct from the sources you quoted but they did not speak on behalf of the church it was their own theories and as such is not the doctrine of the church."//

This contradicts with what Dianaiad says here: “There is no quote from any church leader anywhere that says He did. Every quote that y’all come up with, when looked at in context, talks about how God the Father is the Father, and the Holy Ghost is not; in other words, its’ a Trinitarian argument, not a prurient one.” Both of you are Mormons yet only one of you can be right about this particular issue. I think Diana needs to brush up on the history of Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and its member’s teachings.

From Dianaiad:

//"We believe that God the Father created the universe. The whole thing. All the worlds. We even have scripture that says specifically that, m’friend. Moses 1:33 “And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.”//

Right, so this supports your belief that the many worlds created will be ruled by other gods too? These other gods will be former righteous Mormon human beings from this planet.

CONTINUED

 

[LongJourney]

It’s not who you are. It’s who you aren’t. Oh, and will never be.

Here’s a big hanky for your broken heart…:bighanky:

LOL I have learned to just walk away. Took some pain, but I finally learned.

 

[dianaiad]

Fair enough.

It makes me wonder if Catholics who post that Mormons believe God and Mary were husband and wife actually know the true LDS teaching and are simply being inflammatory or if they really just don’t know.

At any rate, I will be the first to correct anyone on the CAFs who states that LDS teaches that God and Mary were husband and wife and actually engaged in coitus.

Thank you.

Actually, most Catholics (and anybody else) who posts this 'really just don’t know," because they are getting their information from non-LDS sources, who simply repeat inaccurate information.

…which was, originally, put forward by people who know better.

The problem is, far too many people enjoy learning that the other guy believes weird things, and are disappointed when they find out that what they think they know just ain’t so.

It’s one of the reasons why I only use true believers of any faith as a primary source of information about that faith.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Fair enough.

It makes me wonder if Catholics who post that Mormons believe God and Mary were husband and wife actually know the true LDS teaching and are simply being inflammatory or if they really just don’t know.

At any rate, I will be the first to correct anyone on the CAFs who states that LDS teaches that God and Mary were husband and wife and actually engaged in coitus.

I don’t know about the husband and wife part, but at one time it was Mormon teaching that God and Mary had intercourse and Jesus was the result. Or at least that was the inescapable conclusion that had to be drawn from their teaching. That is no longer taught. You can be certain about one thing concerning Mormon doctrine: it changes.

The LDS believe in changing and ongoing revelation, primarily through the presidency. An instance in which God has changed his mind in recent years is the revelation concerning black people, who were said to bear the mark of Cain. From 1849 to 1978, The LDS had a policy against ordaining black men to the Mormon priesthood. A “revelation” from God changed the policy. Another “revelation” suppressing the practice of polygamy enabled Utah to become a state.

This is an excerpt from a book written in 1980 by a Catholic priest who grew up among Mormon relatives. His mother was a Mormon who coverted to Catholicism:

–quote–

. . . for Mormons, Jesus is the *physical *son of God, conceived during an act of sexual intercourse between God and some obscure goddess-mother in a previous “spiritsphere.”

‘Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, “was carried away in the Spirit” . . . and the conception which took place . . . resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and person Son of God the Father.’ (Mormon Doctrine, p. 322)

Mormons stress that the Holy Spirit (a “spiritual man,” according to Mormon Doctrine, p. 752) is not the Father of Jesus. However, the same source, explaning the term “Son of God,” makes the following statement:

‘Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of the Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to his father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was born in the normal and natural course of events . . .’ Mormon Doctrine, p. 742, my emphasis.

The “normal and natural course of events” in most lives is for a father to have sexual intercourse with the mother of his son. So God the Father apparently is believed to have had intercourse with Mary.

–end quote–

With that teaching, it’s easy to see why it was commonly believed by Mormons that God had intercourse with Mary. Now, it’s denied. The Mormons want to be called Christian.

So how did the spirit child, Jesus, get to earth from his pre-existent state?

Source: A Tale of Two Cities, the Mormons - Catholics, A Comparison Between the Mormon and the Catholic Religious Experiences, Rev. William Taylor, Little Red Hen, Inc., Pocatello, Idaho, 1980, pp. 19-20.

Peace y’all, Jim Dandy

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know about the husband and wife part, but at one time it was Mormon teaching that God and Mary had intercourse and Jesus was the result.

Well, as promised, I’m going to have to stand up and say that this is *not *a teaching of the LDS. God and Mary did not have intercourse–I heard it from the Mormon-horse’s mouth. (No insult intended, diana; I am certain that you’re the beautiful, sleek, strong type of horse and not the tired old nag kind. )

Or at least that was the inescapable conclusion that had to be drawn from their teaching. That is no longer taught.

So what say you, diana?

I accept that this is not a current teaching of LDS. God and Mary did not have intercourse.

But was it ever a teaching?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

hmmmm
Angels as a seperate species than souls is a Catholic belief. The LDS believe in spirits that may be asked to run errands for God, where they are often called angels. I have no idea if the spirits that are God’s messengers have lived a mortal life or not.

Does that wet your cereal?

I say again, believe whatever you like and I will never object – but don’t call Mormonism Christian. That’s what I defend against.

Angels are are not a “separate species.” They are not a “species” at all. And they have no “mortal life” because they are not mortal beings.

Webster: Species: 1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. 2. the major subdivision of genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another; that are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

This word applies to humans, animals, plants, insects, and other earthly critters. It does not apply to Angels, who are pure spirits created by God. Angels do not breed among themselves. Being pure spirits, they have no parts. Each angel is created by God.

I mean the real God – not the Mormon God who is flesh and blood and bone and was once a man like me but went through the “exaltation” process to become one of many Gods. Just think – you, too, will become a God like Heavenly Father if you tithe and obey the rules. That’s quite an incentive to be a Mormon! Is that why you converted? Did that wet your cereal?

Stop calling Mormonism “Christian.” If you would learn Christian doctrine, you would realize that Mormonism is not Christian.

You have no basis for your beliefs, except that Joseph Smith – the treasure digger who found treasure looking through magic stones in his hat – said it was so. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mormonism is true – archaeology and genetics prove that it isn’t.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

**PRmerger: ** I call your attention to this language from our Mormon friend Diane that gives credence to the (former) teaching that God had sexual intercourse with Mary (below, in blue).
However, Diane denies it. But the Mormon God is very carnal; he is flesh, blood, and bones like us with body parts (and DNA). Now Mormons give it a different spin

Originally Posted by Jim Dandy
What does “begotten” mean in the Mormon language?

The same thing it means in Catholic language, I suppose. It means that God the Father is the Father of Jesus, spiritually and physically.

To put it another way, Jesus is the Only Being to Whom the Father contributed DNA (or whatever you want to call it) to enable Mary to bear Him so that He (Jesus) might recieve a mortal body.

Oh, and because I am a cynical, suspicious and paranoid soul, let me cut you off before you go one more step in the direction you are obviously heading. We believe that Mary was a virgin at Jesus birth, and we do NOT believe that God had sex with Mary.

 

[zaffiroborant]

**PRmerger: ** I call your attention to this language from our Mormon friend Diane that gives credence to the (former) teaching that God had sexual intercourse with Mary (below, in blue).
However, Diane denies it. But the Mormon God is very carnal; he is flesh, blood, and bones like us with body parts (and DNA). Now Mormons give it a different spin
jim dandy:

What does “begotten” mean in the Mormon language?

dianaiad:

The same thing it means in Catholic language, I suppose. It means that God the Father is the Father of Jesus, spiritually and physically.

To put it another way, Jesus is the Only Being to Whom the Father contributed DNA (or whatever you want to call it) to enable Mary to bear Him so that He (Jesus) might recieve a mortal body.

Oh, and because I am a cynical, suspicious and paranoid soul, let me cut you off before you go one more step in the direction you are obviously heading. We believe that Mary was a virgin at Jesus birth, and we do NOT believe that God had sex with Mary.

I’ve said it before (a few times) there is a difference in the Catholic and LDS understanding of “begotten” when used to describe God the Son. I would think this is obvious from a comparison of it’s use in the Nicene Creed and how Dianaiad uses it in the above quotes.

 

[dianaiad]

**PRmerger: ** I call your attention to this language from our Mormon friend Diane that gives credence to the (former) teaching that God had sexual intercourse with Mary (below, in blue).
However, Diane denies it. But the Mormon God is very carnal; he is flesh, blood, and bones like us with body parts (and DNA). Now Mormons give it a different spin

This…is exactly what I thought would happen.

The ironic thing about this is that while you, sir, are accusing US of ‘limiting’ God to ‘carnal’ means …even as you believe that He sent His Son to be incarnated in just such a physical body, to experience everything we do–YOU are the one limiting Him.

You do realize that mankind has been able to procreate without having physical sex for quite some time now, right? In fact, I personally know a woman who gave birth to her sister and brother in law’s child; she not only didn’t have sex with the father, she was a virgin at the birth of the baby. Oh, she wasn’t the child’s genetic mother, either.

If WE, mere sinful and ignorant human beings, can pull this off, how can you possibly think that God could not…the Being Who brought the Universe into being? Who created us in the first place?

The One Who said “Let us create man in our own image?”

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Croix de fer was correct. :clapping: In Mormon doctrine, Heavenly Father and Mary were husband and wife. And they had sexual intercourse and produced Jesus.

“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore,
the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been
associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have
been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term
lawful wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that
He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully…He had a lawful right
to overshadow the Virgin Mary, in the capacity of a husband, and beget a
Son…Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the
wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.”
Apostle Orson Pratt, “The Seer,” Oct. 1853, p. 158).

Pratt’s statement is supported by Brigham Young: “The man Joseph, the
husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary
the wife of Joseph had another husband.” (Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866).

Here’s a quote from Ezra Taft Benson from 1988, published while he was
president of the LDS church: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The
body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy
Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father.” (Teachings of ET Benson, p. 6).

"Mary had two husbands, the Father and Joseph. She was perhaps the only woman lawfully permitted to engage in polyandry. In the ‘meridian of time,’ as Mormons call it, God the Father looked with favor upon his handmaid, Mary of Nazareth. He visited her and, by the natural, literal process of sexual intercourse described above by Mormon authorities, left her pregnant with his Son . In trying to describe how Mary, in the process of natural intercourse with her Father and God, could remain a virgin, [Bruce] McConkie resorted to redefining the term: "a virgin is a woman who has not had sexual intercourse with a mortal man. The Heavenly Father is a resurrected, immortal man. Therefore, Mary did not lose her virginity.” See the Mortal Messiah, vol. 1, 314. Inside Mormonism, What Mormons Really Believe, Isaiah Bennett, published by Catholic Answers, San Diego, 1999, p. 293-94

Jim Dandy

 

[dianaiad]

Croix de fer was correct. :clapping: In Mormon doctrine, Heavenly Father and Mary were husband and wife. And they had sexual intercourse and produced Jesus.

“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore,
the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been
associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have
been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term
lawful wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that
He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully…He had a lawful right
to overshadow the Virgin Mary, in the capacity of a husband, and beget a
Son…Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the
wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.”
Apostle Orson Pratt, “The Seer,” Oct. 1853, p. 158).

Pratt’s statement is supported by Brigham Young: “The man Joseph, the
husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary
the wife of Joseph had another husband.” (Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866).

Here’s a quote from Ezra Taft Benson from 1988, published while he was
president of the LDS church: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The
body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy
Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father.” (Teachings of ET Benson, p. 6).

"Mary had two husbands, the Father and Joseph. She was perhaps the only woman lawfully permitted to engage in polyandry. In the ‘meridian of time,’ as Mormons call it, God the Father looked with favor upon his handmaid, Mary of Nazareth. He visited her and, by the natural, literal process of sexual intercourse described above by Mormon authorities, left her pregnant with his Son . In trying to describe how Mary, in the process of natural intercourse with her Father and God, could remain a virgin, [Bruce] McConkie resorted to redefining the term: "a virgin is a woman who has not had sexual intercourse with a mortal man. The Heavenly Father is a resurrected, immortal man. Therefore, Mary did not lose her virginity.” See the Mortal Messiah, vol. 1, 314. Inside Mormonism, What Mormons Really Believe, Isaiah Bennett, published by Catholic Answers, San Diego, 1999, p. 293-94

Jim Dandy

None of those quotes specifically states that physical sex was involved. Every one of them talks about how God the Father was the Father of Jesus, and that there was no impropriety involved in His being so: Christ was not a bastard.

The only quote up there that specifically says so is from Isaiah Bennet, who cannot by any means be said to be an LDS leader. He took McConkie’s quote out of context and ran with it.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

More about Heavenly Father, Mary, and Jesus.

–quote–

When Mormons speak of Jesus Christ as the “only begotten Son” of the Father, they mean only that he was the only son whose physical body (as opposed to spirit body) the Father physically begot.

Heber J, Grant, seventh Mormon prophet, wrote: “We believe absolutely that Jesus Christ is the son of God, begotten of God, the first-born in the spirit and the only begotten in the flesh; that he is the Son of God, just as much as you and I are the sons of our fathers.” Millenial Star, January, 1922, 2

Active Mormons claim that God the Father and “Heavenly Mother” not only brought forth the spirit of Christ in the pre-existence, they believe the Father also directly participated in the Lord’s earthly conception. Brigham Young said: “The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary, the wife of Joseph, had another husband. [The babe in] the manger was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being, Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God, our heavenly Father.” Journal of Discourses 2:268

Fielding Smith’s father, Mormon prophet Joseph F. Smith, speaking to young children, said: “You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers . . . You cannot deny it. Now we are told in Scriptures that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father.” Family Home Evening, l972, 125

Bruce McConkie taught that “Christ is the Only Begotten Son …of the Father . . . Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only. Begotten means begotten.; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." Mormon Doctrine, 546-547

“God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, in immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal. And natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says.” Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 742

These are Mormon sources quoted in *Inside Mormonism, What Mormons Really Believe, *Isaiah Bennett, published by Catholic Answers, San Diego, 1999, p. 292-94

Bennett was a Catholic priest who left the Church, became a Mormon, and taught in two colleges in Salt Lake City. He eventually realized that Mormonism is a fraud, and returned to the Catholic Church as a layman. He writes from personal knowledge of the Mormon faith and as a teacher of Mormonism. He wrote his book in reparation to the Sacred Heart for having been duped into leaving the True Faith.

Jim Dandy

 

[RebeccaJ]

Seems more often than not it are the LDS here who take the nature of Jesus off into a tangent.

As long as Mormonism has existed Mormon leaders have taught taught that Jesus is a literal, biological offspring, of God the Father. For earlier Mormons, the belief was this was by a literal intimate, sexual, encounter. More recently, the speculation is along modern scientific methods of conception, without intercourse.

(Interesting enough, they think for some reason this would be more palatable here, on a Catholic forum. Of course, Catholic teaching on artificial insemination can in no way have God practicing it on one of His own creations!)

What matters, theologically speaking, is that ultimately Mormon doctrine is that Jesus is a demi-god. Half human and half god. Which is a novelty, foreign to all of Christianity, and renounced as a heresy.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

None of those quotes specifically states that physical sex was involved. Every one of them talks about how God the Father was the Father of Jesus, and that there was no impropriety involved in His being so: Christ was not a bastard.

The only quote up there that specifically says so is from Isaiah Bennet, who cannot by any means be said to be an LDS leader. He took McConkie’s quote out of context and ran with it.

“Bastard” is a word that applies to human beings. You are confirming Mormon belief that God was a man who became God – au contraire, Jesus Christ was God who became man.

Again:

Ezra Taft Benson, former President of the LDS church, published in 1988: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father.” (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 1988, p. 6). underscore added

Now you claim that Jesus was not sired but was conceived by in vitro fertilization?

I know you have a need to deny it. Diane. And I’m sure that your denial is sincere. Perhaps nothing in Mormonism is as shocking to Christians as this doctrine that God had intercourse with the Virgin Mary. The doctrine had to be changed or Mormons would still be non grata. And the LDS are doing everything possible to insert themselves into the Christian world, including redefining words and changing their teachings.

Jim Dandy

 

[Todd520]

What matters, theologically speaking, is that ultimately Mormon doctrine is that Jesus is a demi-god. Half human and half god. Which is a novelty, foreign to all of Christianity.

Rebecca,
Shame on you for denying your own beliefs and labeling him as a demi-god, just to slander the LDS. I used to think you were a sincere poster on this board.

Dual Nature of Christ
Christ’s dual nature has perplexed theologians for nearly eight-hundred years, since the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. The union between Christ’s divinity and human nature is referred to as the Hypostatic Union: the One Nature of Christ.

According to this theory, within the One Nature of Christ is the divine and the human; not mingled or transmuted. The divine nature is not changed, or does not mutate into a new and separate nature. The human nature, likewise, remains free of change or mutation. But the two are inseparable. It’s said that words are ineffective when it comes to describing the concept of this metaphysical union.

**To deny the humanity of Christ would challenge the entire framework of the Christian concepts of salvation and redemption of sin. **To deny the divinity of Christ would challenge the architecture of Christian theology, and raise question as to the identity of Christ. Both natures are integral to the Christian conception of Christas messiah and Son of God.

catholicism.suite101.com/article.cfm/the-dual-nature-of-christ#ixzz0yZrzB9t4

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
Shame on you for denying your own beliefs and labeling him as a demi-god, just to slander the LDS. I used to think you were a sincere poster on this board.

catholicism.suite101.com/article.cfm/the-dual-nature-of-christ#ixzz0yZrzB9t4

Yeah, it usually doesn’t take long for the new mormons to roll out the ad hominems.

Christian teaching is Jesus is FULLY HUMAN AND FULLY DIVINE. NOT A DEMI-GOD.

If you are confused in regards to this, I suggest you study up on what the church you joined actually teaches. Or ask Diana, she has said on more than one occasion that Jesus was conceived using some sort of divine artificial insemination.

ParkerD was surprised to find in the catechism that we teach Jesus was conceived "without seed’.

Maybe you should learn what your church teaches before attacking me for telling the truth. I don’t label Jesus a demi-god. It is your false prophets that have done so, and continue to do so.

As a Mormon, you can ask yourself what is the difference between you and Jesus?

 

[JHow]

Along the same lines, does the following…

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”

Located here: scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/130

…seem to suggest that the Father has a corporeal body, which would make the relations Jim Dandy is referring to “logistically” possible?

 

[PopeBono]

“Bastard” is a word that applies to human beings. You are confirming Mormon belief that God was a man who became God – au contraire, Jesus Christ was God who became man.

Again:

Ezra Taft Benson, former President of the LDS church, published in 1988: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father.” (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 1988, p. 6). underscore added

Now you claim that Jesus was not sired but was conceived by in vitro fertilization?

I know you have a need to deny it. Diane. And I’m sure that your denial is sincere. Perhaps nothing in Mormonism is as shocking to Christians as this doctrine that God had intercourse with the Virgin Mary. The doctrine had to be changed or Mormons would still be non grata. And the LDS are doing everything possible to insert themselves into the Christian world, including redefining words and changing their teachings.

Jim Dandy

it is NOT our doctrine that God had Sexual Intercourse with Mary. here is the Definition of Sire from webster’s dictionary
siring present participle; sired past tense; sired past participle; sires 3rd person singular present
Be the male parent of (an animal)
(of a person) Be the father of
Yes we do declare that God be the father of Jesus Christ! We do not know the means of how nor do we declare anything but what the scriptures testify.
You distort truth which makes you a liar.
2 nephi 9:34
34 Wo unto the aliar, for he shall be thrust down to bhell.
lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/christ.html

 

[PRmerger]

Rebecca,
Shame on you for denying your own beliefs and labeling him as a demi-god, just to slander the LDS. I used to think you were a sincere poster on this board.

This was a very unnecessary comment.

Christianity does not teach that Jesus was a demi-god.

Jesus was FULLY God and FULLY human.

 

[Todd520]

Yeah, it usually doesn’t take long for the new mormons to roll out the ad hominems.

Christian teaching is Jesus is FULLY HUMAN AND FULLY DIVINE. NOT A DEMI-GOD.

If you are confused in regards to this, I suggest you study up on what the church you joined actually teaches. Or ask Diana, she has said on more than one occasion that Jesus was conceived using some sort of divine artificial insemination.

No no Rebecca,
We both believe that he is the combination of both Human and Divine. How you twist the LDS veiw to be Demi-god but not the RCC perplexes me.

This is escpecially relevant when you consider the catholic statement :
"It’s said that words are ineffective when it comes to describing the concept of this metaphysical union."
Where is your charity in acknowledging that no person can effectively describe this metaphysical union? The catholics clearly admit they are challenged