Question for Mormons

[Returning_Home]

This book you have quoted is interesting. As I understand in my study of Mormonism, it was condemned by the prophet when it was first written on the grounds of its title, lack of permission to print by the prophet, and the assumption of Elder McConkie to speak on behalf of the Church. It is not the book of doctrine for the LDS Church.

I recall reading in the Book of Mormon and the Bible that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.

As I have said before, Mormons would seem to need the equivalent of the Magisterium so that those of us who study Mormonism would understand their actual doctrine.

On your first point, you’re right, the title is a misnomer because it’s not actually *doctrine *per se, but rather McConkie’s retelling of Mormon doctrine. That said, the church actually puts a fair amount o stock in it because my 1996 copy of the BOM student manual has no fewer than 32 references to it (and, interestingly enough, 11 to the JOD) so he must have gotten something right.

On your second point, yes, the BOM speaks of Jesus’ virgin birth, but since the BOM doesn’t actually apply to Mormonism, the point is moot because all of the things unique to it are curiously absent from the text.

And finally, on the third, there doesn’t need to be an actual statement as to what the church holds as truth because if it is indeed the church that Jesus Christ established and then reetablished on earth, anything its leaders state, and anything it prints has to fall under that umbrella of divine authority. Why? Because it doesn’t make sense that he’d let the chruch fall into error a second time, does it?

Not only that, but the way the church diseminates its opinion now contains a built-in back door because not everything that the church holds as fat is known to the cogregation. The best example is polygamy because Smith, his closest cronies, and later leaders were polygamists even though their texts said they were clearly against it until 1876. That means that polygamy was practiced for about 45 years in private while the church denied it to both the public and the lay members.

There’s no reason to establish a new standard when the one they have works just fine for them.

 

[Todd520]

Are you saying the Mormon Church does not have a teaching authority?

No, I think he is suggesting the LDS need a Mormon catechism, that clearly states correct interpretation of scripture.

 

[PaulDupre]

Sorry for my late response. As another poster said, we do not claim that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus. Jesus made it very clear who his Father is. You use this as an argument against the concept of the Trinity, when actually it speaks volumes about the nature of God and in favor of the Trinity. How did Mary become pregnant? The Holy Spirit “came upon her” and through the Holy Spirit she was “overshadowed” by the power of the Most High. Who do you believe is the Most High? Sounds like they are related in more than just “purpose”. Sounds more like one God. Is it your contention that Mary was impregnated by two seperate divine beings, or gods? How exactly does this work in your faith? You say the Holy Spirit was “invloved”. What do you mean by that? How was the Holy Spirit involved?

Thanks.

Steve

Since modern Mormons don’t seem to understand this aspect of Mormon doctrine any more, let this old ex-Mormon explain it to you:

The LDS teach that no mortal can be in the presence of Heavenly Father without being destroyed by His glory. The only way one could survive the physical presence of the Heavenly Father is to be protected by the power of the Holy Ghost.

So, according to the LDS, the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to protect her from the physical presence of the Heavenly Father, and then Heavenly Father appeared and “overshadowed” the blessed virgin.

Mormon leaders like this term “overshadowed” because they think it means he was on top of her (having sex with her) and so cast his shadow on her.

They don’t know that “overshadowed” in the ancient world was a polite way of saying “possessed by”.

 

[PRmerger]

Mormon leaders like this term “overshadowed” because they think it means he was on top of her (having sex with her) and so cast his shadow on her.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana: I am starting to believe you like to win arguments more than accept evidence:

• Communism - friend of religion (Tell that to Popieluszko).

Do not make the mistake of thinking that Communism is a monolithic political construct run by Russians and atheists. There are as many forms of it as there are forms of religion. The basic premise of communism is that everybody holds 'all things in common" (hence the name).

• Early Christians - the real communists, also the first hippies?

The first hippies? (thinking back to my youth…) nope. I remember hippies very well indeed. Wasn’t cool enough to BE one, but I did have tie dye t-shirts, hip hugger bell bottoms and leather head bands, to look as close to the part as I could without getting wasted. Somehow I can’t see Paul putting up with 'em, myself. The ‘free love’ thing would have put him off, if nothing else.

As for being the FIRST communists? Probably not…but they were definitely communists…holding all things in common.

Please do not take from this acknowledgment of historical fact any hint of approval for the modern versions of communism. Me, I’m a fiscally right leaning libertarian, myself.

• Hiss - convicted liar, but more truthful than Chambers (Venona transcripts be damned!)

Acquit me. I didn’t claim he was. I simply asked the question.

Why is it so hard to admit that when you throw the charge of Rebecca is an ex-Mormon with an axe to grind, you have left off debating the evidence?

Rebecca IS an ex-Mormon. She posts on CAF non-Catholic religions, and her posts are consistently negative regarding Mormonism. That’s not a ‘charge,’ it’s not an insult, it’s fact…just as it is fact that I am a Mormon who posts on CAF, and my posts are almost all about Mormonism, as well, though mine are a lot more positive about my belief system than hers are.

If my point is that true believers of any faith are better sources for information about that faith than ex-members who spend time criticizing their old belief system, that’s not avoiding debate. That’s establishing bona fides.

Before you debate evidence, you have to have some standard for judging whether that evidence is valid.

For instance: if a Catholic priest says that Catholics believe this or that–and points to the catechism to prove it, isn’t that a better source of evidence for Catholic beliefs than if an ex-Catholic-turned-fundamentalist claims something–and points to Jack Chick for his source?

How about simply a good mass-going parishioner who says that the Rosary means this…and the same ex-Catholic claims it means something else? Who is more likely to be right about what the Rosary means?

Who would YOU prefer a non-member looking for information to go to?

One could easily turn this around and say that Rebecca is the most annoying person you argue with because she knows your position so well.

I’m guessing Rebecca will still keep debating you. I enjoy reading your posts.

I don’t actually argue with Rebecca…at least, not very often.

 

[dianaiad]

This is an example of Mormonism using Christian terminology to describe unChristian beliefs.

The Mormon Jesus is a spirit child of Heavenly Father and one of his many goddess wives who lived in a pre-existent state in some “heaven” somewhere in the cosmos with his spirit brother Satan, alias Lucifer. Jesus volunteered to come to earth to save us, and was born on earth as a result of sexual intercourse between the Virgin Mary and Heavenly Father (i.e.,God.). Let the denials begin (we’ve already been through this) but this is unadulterated, original Mormonism.

There is a reason we will all deny it, Dandy. It’s because WE DON’T BELIEVE IT. Doesn’t the fact that all the Mormons you have EVER spoken to, including all the Mormons who post here, tell you that we do not believe that Jesus was concieved as a result of God having sex with Mary mean ANYTHING to you?

Can you tell me why we, who are actually the folks doing the believing, should bow to your opinion of what our beliefs are, when you don’t get 'em right? There really is no reason for anybody to ‘deny’ a belief like that, y’know, unless they don’t actually believe it. As for your assumption that we are going to deny it (somehow implying that our denial of it somehow proves that we actually DO believe it)…turn it around. Consider the reaction of believers if someone claims that Christian evangelical fundamentalists all dance with snakes and drink poisoned kool-aid, or that Catholics are cannibals.

I know, I know…let the denials begin and all that.

 

[dianaiad]

Orson Pratt, original member of the Quorum of Twelve Disciples: “The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore the Father and Mother of Jesus must have been associated together 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.” The Seer, 158-159

“Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” Bruce McKonkie, Mormon Doctrine 546-547.

“God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as a 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 McKonkie, Mormon Doctrine, 742.

Mormon Doctrine is for sale at the local LDS bookstore in my city.

Yes, We do believe that God really is the physical Father of the mortal Jesus. He did that without having sex with Mary. Get over it.

 

[dianaiad]

Who told you Mary never had to go through Labor? Hopefully not Catholic’s. The Church has taught and will always teach that while the Blessed Mother did have labor she never experienced any Labor PAINS. There is a big difference there. But it hits a good point also.

Why does a women have labor pains? Simple because of sin, Why did the Blessed Mother not have Pains? Simple, No Sin

Oh, yes…Catholics told me, and right here on this forum. Really, I promise!

I don’t hold the church to it, though–I certainly haven’t found anything in the catechism to support it

…uhmn…could you give me some sources about her not experiencing the pains? I have to admit, that is an odd thing to me; sorta takes all the urgency out of that night searching so desperately for a place for her to give birth.

As to why a woman has labor pains…it’s because of the way we are built and the fact that our kids have big skulls. . Jesus Christ’s sacrifice…His life, HIs death and His resurrection took care of original sin. If, in spite of the fact that He did that for everybody women STILL have to hurt like the dickens to give birth, then—I cry foul!!!

I mean, consider; in Catholic theology infants are baptised as soon as possible to take care of original sin. How fair is it, then, that the women still have to go through that?

Nope, not buying that one, personally. Bad enough that we DO have to deal with it; I"m not blaming God for it.

 

[JeanMichel]

Are you saying the Mormon Church does not have a teaching authority?

They don’t seem to have a group whose purpose is to clarify doctrine. The current prophet and their 12 apostles may clarify doctrine, but they seldom choose to do so. The result is that we can review past leaders’ comments and find they conflict with Mormon scriptures. They seldom were corrected for their…heresy. They seem to have the ability to posit their opinions. Very few times has actual revelation been added to their books.

It makes it confusing. Those outside of their church can bring these heretical opinions to the front and then Mormons say it is not in their scriptures and is thus an opinion. I don’t understand why they don’t try to clarify their doctrine!?! It seems that all they really clarify is the basics: faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Spirit, healing of the sick, priesthood authority, etc.

When it goes beyond the basics Mormons seem to be free to believe whatever they choose or at least for what they find support from their personal interpretation of sacred scripture. For many this may be liberating, but for others it is just too loose to be comfortable.

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry for my late response. As another poster said, we do not claim that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus. Jesus made it very clear who his Father is. You use this as an argument against the concept of the Trinity, when actually it speaks volumes about the nature of God and in favor of the Trinity. How did Mary become pregnant? The Holy Spirit “came upon her” and through the Holy Spirit she was “overshadowed” by the power of the Most High. Who do you believe is the Most High? Sounds like they are related in more than just “purpose”. Sounds more like one God. Is it your contention that Mary was impregnated by two seperate divine beings, or gods? How exactly does this work in your faith? You say the Holy Spirit was “invloved”. What do you mean by that? How was the Holy Spirit involved?

Thanks.

Steve

We don’t know. It’s a miracle/mystery. It’s enough to understand that the Holy Ghost was involved; He prepared/overcame/whatever Mary, and she became pregnant by God the Father.

When modern artificial insemination happens, the doctor handles the procedure, but that doesn’t mean that he is the father–OR that he had sex with the woman, does it?

…and no, that does NOT mean that we believe the Holy Ghost was acting like the doctor and this was a matter of artificial insemination in the modern sense. It is simply a statement that if we, mere humans, can have one person make a woman pregnant by another without sex involved, then it is incredibly unreasonable for anybody to claim that God could NOT have done so.

We have exactly the same amount of information you do; the Holy Ghost 'overshadowed" Mary, and she conceived the Son of God. Since we are not Trinitarians, that means that there were Two Beings involved. Since she was a virgin at Christ’s birth, His conception did not involve sexual relations between God and Mary.

It’s as simple as that.

 

[SteveVH]

Since modern Mormons don’t seem to understand this aspect of Mormon doctrine any more, let this old ex-Mormon explain it to you:

The LDS teach that no mortal can be in the presence of Heavenly Father without being destroyed by His glory. The only way one could survive the physical presence of the Heavenly Father is to be protected by the power of the Holy Ghost.

So, according to the LDS, the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to protect her from the physical presence of the Heavenly Father, and then Heavenly Father appeared and “overshadowed” the blessed virgin.

Mormon leaders like this term “overshadowed” because they think it means he was on top of her (having sex with her) and so cast his shadow on her.

They don’t know that “overshadowed” in the ancient world was a polite way of saying “possessed by”.

Thanks for that Paul.

 

[JHow]

There is a reason we will all deny it, Dandy. It’s because WE DON’T BELIEVE IT. Doesn’t the fact that all the Mormons you have EVER spoken to, including all the Mormons who post here, tell you that we do not believe that Jesus was concieved as a result of God having sex with Mary mean ANYTHING to you? …

The problem is that you are frequently in the position of defending your beliefs against the plain meaning of various Mormon texts, official or otherwise. For example, someone will produce this:

“Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” Bruce McKonkie, Mormon Doctrine 546-547."

And you will tell us that you don’t believe anything like that.

You give the impression that Mormon thought cannot be discerned from reading Mormon texts (since the “real” meanings are hidden); it can only be understood through conversation with a true believer.

Will you at least admit that one possible way to read the words “…same way that mortal mean are begotten by mortal farthers” is: “…through sexual reproduction?” I know you often bring up artifical reproduction, but exceptions don’t make the rule. Most children get here one way. Can you not see why this language is at a minimum confusing? Would you be willing to say that Bruce McKonkie could have chosen his words better, since the real doctrine is concealed?

 

[SteveVH]

We don’t know. It’s a miracle/mystery. It’s enough to understand that the Holy Ghost was involved; He prepared/overcame/whatever Mary, and she became pregnant by God the Father.

When modern artificial insemination happens, the doctor handles the procedure, but that doesn’t mean that he is the father–OR that he had sex with the woman, does it?

…and no, that does NOT mean that we believe the Holy Ghost was acting like the doctor and this was a matter of artificial insemination in the modern sense. It is simply a statement that if we, mere humans, can have one person make a woman pregnant by another without sex involved, then it is incredibly unreasonable for anybody to claim that God could NOT have done so.

We have exactly the same amount of information you do; the Holy Ghost 'overshadowed" Mary, and she conceived the Son of God. Since we are not Trinitarians, that means that there were Two Beings involved. Since she was a virgin at Christ’s birth, His conception did not involve sexual relations between God and Mary.

It’s as simple as that.

Well, you got part of it right, that is “His conception did not involve sexual relations between God and Mary.” As to the rest of your scenario, this has nothing to do with questioning God’s ability to do anything.

it is incredibly unreasonable for anybody to claim that God could NOT have done so.

The question is the Mormon interpretation of what DID happen, not what COULD have happened. Can you at least see how neatly the Trinity fits into this situation. Mary was dealing with ONE being, ONE God. What I think is unreasonable is to think that God could NOT manifest Himself through the person of the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit that “came upon her”.

Anyway, I appreciate the response. Thanks.

 

[dianaiad]

The problem is that you are frequently in the position of defending your beliefs against the plain meaning of various Mormon texts, official or otherwise. For example, someone will produce this:

“Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” Bruce McKonkie, Mormon Doctrine 546-547."

And you will tell us that you don’t believe anything like that.

The problem is, we are talking about procreation and the laws of nature that involve conception, and you are talking about sex. They are NOT the same thing. WE know they aren’t the same thing, although the delivery method for mortal sperm is through sexual intercourse, usually (though nowadays not always) as long as conception can take place without sexual intercourse, then the two topics are not the same. The point is, it doesn’t matter what YOU think McKonkie meant. Our beliefs depend upon what WE think he meant.

You give the impression that Mormon thought cannot be discerned from reading Mormon texts (since the “real” meanings are hidden); it can only be understood through conversation with a true believer.

Bingo.

Or at least, if you want to know what the believers believe, then you need their exegesis of those texts, not yours. For instance, do you really want a Mormon to decide what Catholics ‘really’ believe by reading Papal bulls and not asking a Catholic how that fits in with everything else?

Will you at least admit that one possible way to read the words “…same way that mortal mean are begotten by mortal farthers” is: “…through sexual reproduction?”

Of course. If you couldn’t read it that way, all those who hate us wouldn’t be insisting that it’s the ONLY way you could read it. The point is, those who wrote it that way didn’t mean it that way, and LDS beleivers do not read it that way. Since it is what WE believe they mean that informs our doctrines and opinions, then what difference does it make how someone else eisegetes it?

I know you often bring up artifical reproduction, but exceptions don’t make the rule. Most children get here one way.

Jesus wasn’t ‘most children.’ His conception was unique, and a miracle. YOU believe that. Why do you insist that we can’t?

Can you not see why this language is at a minimum confusing? Would you be willing to say that Bruce McKonkie could have chosen his words better, since the real doctrine is concealed?

It is only concealed by those who take those qoutes out of context and refuse to accept LDS interpretation of any of them. However, McKonkie could have ‘chosen his words better…" which is one of the reasons why, when he was called to be an apostle, the church asked him to revise his "Mormon Doctrine’ to better reflect, well…Mormon Doctrine.

 

[Stephen168]

They don’t seem to have a group whose purpose is to clarify doctrine. The current prophet and their 12 apostles may clarify doctrine, but they seldom choose to do so. The result is that we can review past leaders’ comments and find they conflict with Mormon scriptures. They seldom were corrected for their…heresy. They seem to have the ability to posit their opinions. Very few times has actual revelation been added to their books.

It makes it confusing. Those outside of their church can bring these heretical opinions to the front and then Mormons say it is not in their scriptures and is thus an opinion. I don’t understand why they don’t try to clarify their doctrine!?! It seems that all they really clarify is the basics: faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Spirit, healing of the sick, priesthood authority, etc.

When it goes beyond the basics Mormons seem to be free to believe whatever they choose or at least for what they find support from their personal interpretation of sacred scripture. For many this may be liberating, but for others it is just too loose to be comfortable.

I always thought Mormons had a ‘teaching authority’ and wished they had a ‘Mormon Catechism,’ because it would make Mormon doctrine much easier to understand and talk about with Mormons.

After thinking about your desire for Mormonism to have a Magisterium, I have to agree; there seems to be no real teaching ‘authority’ in the Mormon Church. I can see that a Mormon Magisterium would be required before there could really be a Mormon Catechism. The authority to teach would have to come before the teaching.

1958 – ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Bruce McConkie published
1960 – Mormon Prophet David McKay didn’t like the tone of ‘Mormon Doctrine’
1966 – ‘Mormon Doctrine’ 2nd edition published with blessing of David McKay.
1972 – Bruce McConkie called to be a Mormon Apostle

When I see on CAF how Mormons have backed away from the closest thing the Mormon Church has had to a catechism, it doesn’t seem like there is a Mormon Magisterium.

 

[JHow]

The problem is, we are talking about procreation and the laws of nature that involve conception, and you are talking about sex.

Ninth grade biology class left me with the impression that sex is procreation - blame the public schools.

They are NOT the same thing. WE know they aren’t the same thing…

In interpreting texts it might be useful to note what is the “usual” thing. (Also, why are you yelling “WE”?)

The point is, it doesn’t matter what YOU think McKonkie meant. Our beliefs depend upon what WE think he meant.

Obviously, you are in no way obligated to follow the plain sense of the text.

Bingo. Or at least, if you want to know what the believers believe, then you need their exegesis of those texts, not yours.

Yes, I know your position on primary sources. You missed the irony there, I think.

I did not perform exegesis on your text - I inquired about the plain meaning of the words - not considering anything outside the text as written. Personally, I am not wedded to the thesis that your religion teaches that God and Mary had sex or otherwise.

For instance, do you really want a Mormon to decide what Catholics ‘really’ believe …

If you read my questions, I am not telling you what you believe, I am asking you to square your stated beliefs with the examples given previously in this thread. Examples which, when read using the normal rules of English do not seem to support your understanding.

Of course.

Thank you for accepting that someone COULD read it that way. I think most English speakers with no knowledge of Mormonism would read it this way.

If you couldn’t read it that way, all those who hate us wouldn’t be insisting that it’s the ONLY way you could read it. The point is, those who wrote it that way didn’t mean it that way, and LDS beleivers do not read it that way.

Yes, I get that you read it differently.

Since it is what WE believe they mean that informs our doctrines and opinions, then what difference does it make how someone else eisegetes it?

It just makes communication difficult if your texts are written in a code that only you can decipher.

Jesus wasn’t ‘most children.’ His conception was unique, and a miracle. YOU believe that. Why do you insist that we can’t?

Yes, I didn’t think Jesus was conceived like everybody else, but then Bruce just wrote that Jesus was conceived like everybody else.

It is only concealed by those who take those qoutes out of context and refuse to accept LDS interpretation of any of them.

How much more context do I need to get Bruce’s real idea here? Are you going to tell me that If I read the next five pages in the text he would have cleared it all up for me?

However, McKonkie could have ‘chosen his words better…" which is one of the reasons why, when he was called to be an apostle, the church asked him to revise his "Mormon Doctrine’ to better reflect, well…Mormon Doctrine.

Thank You! He didn’t explain your real beliefs very well.

 

[zaffiroborant]

For instance, do you really want a Mormon to decide what Catholics ‘really’ believe by reading Papal bulls and not asking a Catholic how that fits in with everything else?

Cry me a river You were recently the “Mormon” deciding what Catholics “really” believe when reading their words, insisting on your interpretation even after Catholics told you just what we believed about those words.

 

[Stephen168]

Cry me a river You were recently the “Mormon” deciding what Catholics “really” believe when reading their words, insisting on your interpretation even after Catholics told you just what we believed about those words.

I see it in most of her posts

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Cry me a river You were recently the “Mormon” deciding what Catholics “really” believe when reading their words, insisting on your interpretation even after Catholics told you just what we believed about those words.

Yes, she does this numerous times, but only calls others on it when they talk about Mormonism. Very amusing to watch.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I see it in most of her posts

I think you are back on ignore so she won’t see this, maybe mine too?
Somebody quote us