Question for Mormons

[dianaiad]

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

This isn’t standard human biology. This is the conception and birth of the Savior. Unique.

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

Emphasis.

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

We are in no way obligated to follow someone else’s eisegesis–and have them decide what the ‘plain meaning’ is, when the context clears it up, no.

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

No, actually, I didn’t miss the intended irony.

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.

I’m glad about that.

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.

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.

Not when those quotes are read in context. The problem is, the quotes are very seldom presented in context. What frosts me is that even when the context is explained, and the meaning/ beliefs we hold here are made clear, those who use those quotes in an attempt to ‘prove’ that we believe this continue to do so–as if the believers never opened their keyboards or their mouths.

Yes, I get that you read it differently.

Yep,

…and I’m the Mormon. I get to define what my beliefs are.

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

They aren’t that difficult–when placed in context. Really.

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

He wrote that Jesus’ human body was created in the same way that everybody else’s was–embryo, fetus, growing in the womb, born of a woman, fully human. conception is that instant when the egg is fertilyzed and begins to grow into a human. conception does not take place during sex…ninth grade biology gave you that information, right? Sex is the usual delivery method for that which fertilyzes the egg, but we know it’s not the only thing that can–and we ARE talking about God, Who created the entire Universe and can do pretty much anything He wants to, right?

We emphasize two very important things here; one is Trinitarian in nature–that is, God the Father is the Father, the Holy Ghost (no matter how important He may have been for that conception) is not. It is an anti-modalist, relatively anti-Trinitarian position. The other thing is, ‘fully human’ means ‘fully human.’ Whatever it is that God did with Mary to cause her to concieve (that is, so that Jesus was physically His Only Begotten Son) it caused Him to be completely human…and that would be, obviously, human to the point where all the DNA is also human…on both sides. HOW God managed that is beside the point; but Jesus being fully human demands that; ‘fully human’ is ‘fully human’.

The Book of Mormon, however, describes Mary as a virgin at the birth of Jesus…and the word ‘virgin’ was used–in the English sense. Therefore she was a virgin. Untouched…never having had sex. No matter what other Christians might think, then, we can have no excuse to believe that Mary was anything other than a virgin at her Son’s birth.

Therefore, however God managed to cause Mary to concieve Jesus so that He was fully human and fully the Son of God the Father, it wasn’t through sex.

Honestly, I do NOT understand why this is so hard…except of course I do. EVerybody prefers the National Enquirer to National Geographic when they want to make fun of someone or something. The real doctrine behind this is rather boring…so much more titilating to claim that we believe God had (gasp) sex with Mary, even when we don’t. No fun in accepting that.

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?

Actually, the previous five would have been better…

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

Not everybody does. However, he’s not the only one who wrote about it.

 

[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.

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

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Ok, at the risk of getting clobbered by the moderators, …that is…false to fact, Z.

I have never once attempted to claim that “Catholics believe this” in an attempt to destroy CAtholicism, or ‘teach’ non-Catholics what Catholics ‘really’ believe. I"ve never once done anything close to what you do to us all the time.

I will freely admit to having some very lively debates WITH Catholics regarding a couple of things…and in both cases it turns out that the only difference between the way you present your beliefs and the way I did is that–you didn’t like the words I used. The facts were the same. I’ve never claimed that you believed something, as a Catholic, that you don’t actually believe.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

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.

I think that you’re implying a difference that isn’t there. As Trinitarians, we believe that there were two distinct persons involved (Father and Holy Spirit), where the Son is the Son of God the Father, and was born by the power of the Holy Spirit (who is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son). Since we do not use “being” as an equivalent to “person” (as we tend to do today), if we were to use that sense, then Trinitarians would agree that two “beings” were involved.

 

[dianaiad]

I think that you’re implying a difference that isn’t there. As Trinitarians, we believe that there were two distinct persons involved (Father and Holy Spirit), where the Son is the Son of God the Father, and was born by the power of the Holy Spirit (who is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son). Since we do not use “being” as an equivalent to “person” (as we tend to do today), if we were to use that sense, then Trinitarians would agree that two “beings” were involved.

It’s not my argument, sir. Nor is it an argument against your version of the Trinity as you explain it. However, it IS the argument that is being made here, against those who do not believe precisely as you do, but who also argue with us. Please stop assuming that every speech given by every LDS leader is a direct address to modern Catholic thought. Most of the folks who were giving Mormons grief at the time most of those quotes were made were NOT Catholic, and had a rather different view of the Trinity than do you.

This argument is in the context of those quotes used to ‘prove’ that we believe God had sex with Mary–whether you accept it as a valid argument or not, that’s the argument, and THAT is the context in which those quotes are found.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

It’s not my argument, sir. Nor is it an argument against your version of the Trinity as you explain it. However, it IS the argument that is being made here, against those who do not believe precisely as you do, but who also argue with us. Please stop assuming that every speech given by every LDS leader is a direct address to modern Catholic thought. Most of the folks who were giving Mormons grief at the time most of those quotes were made were NOT Catholic, and had a rather different view of the Trinity than do you.

This argument is in the context of those quotes used to ‘prove’ that we believe God had sex with Mary–whether you accept it as a valid argument or not, that’s the argument, and THAT is the context in which those quotes are found.

I don’t know what you’re responding to here, but my response was regarding your “since we are not Trinitarians” comment, and what that statement implied (from the typical usage of the word “being”).

The Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and the various Trinitarian Protestant churches all officially agree on what the Trinity is defined as. Therefore, it is up to you to provide us with evidence of this variant “Trinitarian” belief that was being addressed. No one ever said that they were addressing Catholics, however since Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants are Trinitarians, providing a Catholic perspective on the matter is fully relevant, since we all agree on the nature of the Trinity (an issue that has been brought up numerous times in regards to validity of baptisms, who is “Christian”, etc.).

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t know what you’re responding to here, but my response was regarding your “since we are not Trinitarians” comment, and what that statement implied (from the typical usage of the word “being”).

The Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and the various Trinitarian Protestant churches all officially agree on what the Trinity is defined as. Therefore, it is up to you to provide us with evidence of this variant “Trinitarian” belief that was being addressed. No one ever said that they were addressing Catholics, however since Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants are Trinitarians, providing a Catholic perspective on the matter is fully relevant, since we all agree on the nature of the Trinity (an issue that has been brought up numerous times in regards to validity of baptisms, who is “Christian”, etc.).

Not everybody agrees with your understanding of the Trinity. Most of the arguments surrounding the quotes used here address those who lean more toward modalism–and frankly, most of the people surrounding the early Mormons leaned that way; hence the tenor of the arguments.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Not everybody agrees with your understanding of the Trinity. Most of the arguments surrounding the quotes used here address those who lean more toward modalism–and frankly, most of the people surrounding the early Mormons leaned that way; hence the tenor of the arguments.

That’s exactly the point: The Trinity doctrine has a specific definition that is held in common by those that profess to be “Trinitarians”. The misunderstandings of some on what the Trinity doctrine is actually stating are misunderstandings, not valid definitions of “The Trinity”. As already mentioned, the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and the orthodox Trinitarian Protestant churches all officially agree on what the Trinity is defined as (hence why the Catholic Church accepts the baptisms of churches that profess Trinitarian belief). Therefore, when you make a statement about “since we are not Trinitarians”, or that the statements by your leaders were about “Trinitarian” arguments, you are addressing those that believe in the Trinity (and my response is therefore as valid as one from an Orthodox, from a Lutheran, an Anglican, etc). If on the other hand you were addressing those that have a misunderstanding of the Trinity (such as those that confuse it with Modalism), then perhaps you should have been more clear on that.

Please provide sources where we can read more about the modalistic tendencies of those around Mormons at the time of these statements.

 

[JeanMichel]

That’s exactly the point: The Trinity doctrine has a specific definition that is held in common by those that profess to be “Trinitarians”. The misunderstandings of some on what the Trinity doctrine is actually stating are misunderstandings, not valid definitions of “The Trinity”. As already mentioned, the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and the orthodox Trinitarian Protestant churches all officially agree on what the Trinity is defined as (hence why the Catholic Church accepts the baptisms of churches that profess Trinitarian belief). Therefore, when you make a statement about “since we are not Trinitarians”, or that the statements by your leaders were about “Trinitarian” arguments, you are addressing those that believe in the Trinity (and my response is therefore as valid as one from an Orthodox, from a Lutheran, an Anglican, etc). If on the other hand you were addressing those that have a misunderstanding of the Trinity (such as those that confuse it with Modalism), then perhaps you should have been more clear on that.

Please provide sources where we can read more about the modalistic tendencies of those around Mormons at the time of these statements.

I think both of you are communicating past each other. Diana, what each individual believes is nearly impossible to quantify. HOWEVER, you are certainly correct in stating that there is a broad range of individual beliefs in the Christian Trinitarian world.

On the other hand, GuyNY, is correct in stating that Trinitarian organizations all teach claim to teach the same doctrine. Guy is repeating this statement and nothing else.

Both of you are correct and both of you have deficits in your position. The Trinitarian organization all have the same doctrine regarding the Trinity. However, within each organization it is also correct that individual preachers may teach an incorrect understanding of the doctrine and individuals will believe a broad range of ideas.

For a doctrine that is almost incomprehensible as the Trinity, it is not surprising this is so. As it has often been said, the doctrine of the Trinity may not be comprehended, but it can be apprehended.

As an aside, within the Catholic Church throughout its history are many examples of priests and other leader sadly taking heretical positions. They have eithere repented of their ways or been cast out. Mormons also have had a broad range of leaders that have taken positions that the Church did not follow or support. They were never, to my limited knowledge, ever chastized in public. Neither side is so correct that they can honestly criticize the other. The Catholic Church seems to be much more active in keeping their doctrine pure. Mormons seem to allow leaders to take positions for periods of time that are never sanctioned by the Church itself. I wonder if they will ever begin to really take a definite stand on what is correct doctrine versus opinion?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I wonder if they will ever begin to really take a definite stand on what is correct doctrine versus opinion?

I think if they did they would lose what Smith envisioned his church should be like. Creed-less.

For LDS it is more about behavior than it is doctrine. If everyone has the right behavior, then they must have the right doctrine. Of course, society changes in what is considered “right behavior”, and so Mormon doctrine changes right along. Appearance is everything.

 

[JeanMichel]

I think if they did they would lose what Smith envisioned his church should be like. Creed-less.

For LDS it is more about behavior than it is doctrine. If everyone has the right behavior, then they must have the right doctrine. Of course, society changes in what is considered “right behavior”, and so Mormon doctrine changes right along. Appearance is everything.

It certainly seems like their position, without any clear statement(s) of doctrine, allows for too much confusion or flexibility.

They really haven’t even addressed the question of infallibility of their leaders: prophets and apostles. At times it is like trying to grasp a fish in the stream when the fish is made of water. It is impossible to really grasp their teachings.

Behavior is important. I think some might even say paramount. BUT, for the power of actions to be the most effective, they must result of truth. The more truth you know, the more clear and righteous your actions. I find that proper motivation is of most importance. I may feed the widow, but if I do so out of pride or self-aggrandizement in the eyes of others, I will already have had my reward. Our actions should only be to glorify God, love others as we love him.

Rebecca, how merciful God is to us. The price Jesus paid to wash away all our sins is overwhelming. Though I know we are unprofitable servants, may we always seek to glorify him and love others as he loved us.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It certainly seems like their position, without any clear statement(s) of doctrine, allows for too much confusion or flexibility.

They really haven’t even addressed the question of infallibility of their leaders: prophets and apostles. At times it is like trying to grasp a fish in the stream when the fish is made of water. It is impossible to really grasp their teachings.

Behavior is important. I think some might even say paramount. BUT, for the power of actions to be the most effective, they must result of truth. The more truth you know, the more clear and righteous your actions. I find that proper motivation is of most importance. I may feed the widow, but if I do so out of pride or self-aggrandizement in the eyes of others, I will already have had my reward. Our actions should only be to glorify God, love others as we love him.

Rebecca, how merciful God is to us. The price Jesus paid to wash away all our sins is overwhelming. Though I know we are unprofitable servants, may we always seek to glorify him and love others as he loved us.

I certainly don’t begrudge Mormons their good works.

So, just to be clear, I don’t hate Mormons. 95% of my family, extended and otherwise, are LDS. I see their destiny is found in the same Person mine is. This is the reason to love anyone, and everyone.

What I don’t love are the lies of Mormonism. I see Mormons under it, and for the main part, naively promoting it. I see no reason to sit by and say nothing. Mormons call me anti, and some even say I hate them. I don’t. That is their Mormon defense kicking in, one they’ve been taught and one of the many things they believe. Those who have left Mormonism are, in their eyes, Godless, that is, God has left the building for people who leave.

This bias is not something of my making, and of course, is based on a lie.

What I find interesting is that people fall for their assertions. You understand, I don’t see this as based on love, or truth.

 

[rinnie]

Double

 

[Todd520]

Double

I pity the puerile mind

 

[Returning_Home]

Not everybody agrees with your understanding of the Trinity. Most of the arguments surrounding the quotes used here address those who lean more toward modalism–and frankly, most of the people surrounding the early Mormons leaned that way; hence the tenor of the arguments.

True there’s the Christian understanding based on the Bible and then there’s the Mormon version, based on the wildly varying opinions of the fase prophet, Joseph Smith.

 

[JeanMichel]

I certainly don’t begrudge Mormons their good works.

So, just to be clear, I don’t hate Mormons. 95% of my family, extended and otherwise, are LDS. I see their destiny is found in the same Person mine is. This is the reason to love anyone, and everyone.

What I don’t love are the lies of Mormonism. I see Mormons under it, and for the main part, naively promoting it. I see no reason to sit by and say nothing. Mormons call me anti, and some even say I hate them. I don’t. That is their Mormon defense kicking in, one they’ve been taught and one of the many things they believe. Those who have left Mormonism are, in their eyes, Godless, that is, God has left the building for people who leave.

This bias is not something of my making, and of course, is based on a lie.

What I find interesting is that people fall for their assertions. You understand, I don’t see this as based on love, or truth.

When I denigrate the beliefs of another, I can expect nothing else other than defensiveness. That is a natural reaction.

Do you think the Mormon church teaches their members to be defensive? Is that an opinion or do you have a reference for that? I would appreciate seeing it because I have missed it.

I apologize that your family may have treated you poorly when you found Catholicism. We humans too easily offend our most beloved as well as the stranger. I know that you are not Godless and I suspect that most Mormons know it also. Forgive you family and move on. They will come to know the rightness of your decision as they see your joy and happiness.

I personally admire any church that teaches Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected. They are teaching the greatest of truths. Once of the path toward Christ, I believe God will lead them into a fulness of truth. Our purpose is simply to live those truths so that others learn by our example; they speak so much more loudly than our words.

 

[JHow]

He wrote that Jesus’ human body was created in the same way that everybody else’s was–embryo, fetus, growing in the womb, born of a woman, fully human.

He may have written the above somewhere else, but I was reacting to this excerpt previously quoted in the thread:

“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."

Sex is the usual delivery method for that which fertilyzes the egg, but we know it’s not the only thing that can–and we ARE talking about God, Who created the entire Universe and can do pretty much anything He wants to, right?

Right, God can work miracles, but the “same way mortal men are begotten” is explicitly not miraculous. Had Mckonkie not put this “same way that mortal men…” in here, we would likely never have had this discussion (“begotten, not made” after all).

If Mckonkie meant to say that Jesus “after being miraculously conceived, developed in the womb like everyone else”, he could have done so.

What he actually said, however, suggests something else.

Beget (an archaism by 1959) is synonymous with procreate, of which the root means “breed”. It can carry the meaning of both paternity (who, whose) but also the act or procreation.

Further, begotten is the past participle, used to indicate a past or completed action, so manifestly not referring to the ongoing (but past tense) activity of fetal development.

What I learned in ninth grade biology was that reproduction (the process by which offspring are formed and genetic material passed on), in humans, is sexual. And a Catholic would likely add that this informs our teachings about being open to the gift of life in the marriage bed.

Understand, I am not insisting that this (the sex thing) is Mormon doctrine. I believe you when you say its not - I am merely pointing out, that Mckonkie in his own words has effectively described something other than Mormon doctrine. Your chief counter argument to this has been essentially: “I’m the real Mormon here - I get to say what it what it means” - to which I answer “The English language has rules of its own, to which everyone attempting to communicate in English is beholden”, hence my harping on “plain meanings”.

This last piece is very important, because unless Mormonism is a kind of gnosticism, possesing hidden doctrines and meanings, accesible only to the initiated, then reasonably literate people ought to be able to access Mormon doctrines through your texts.

The Book of Mormon, however, describes Mary as a virgin at the birth of Jesus…and the word ‘virgin’ was used–in the English sense. Therefore she was a virgin. Untouched…never having had sex. No matter what other Christians might think, then, we can have no excuse to believe that Mary was anything other than a virgin at her Son’s birth.

At this point you have left Mconkie behind and are making points (valid ones, likely) outside his text. These points may be useful in understanding what Mormons believe, but the conclusion will be that you must reject Mconkie.

Honestly, I do NOT understand why this is so hard…

It is hard, because Mconkie made it so. He is saying something contrary to your beliefs. Your point about “out of context” may be valid, and to answer that we would have read the text surrounding this quotation. For my own curiosity I will look for this text in the library.

 

[Todd520]

He may have written the above somewhere else, but I was reacting to this excerpt previously quoted in the thread:

“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."

If Mckonkie meant to say that Jesus “after being miraculously conceived, developed in the womb like everyone else”, he could have done so.

What he actually said, however, suggests something else.

JHow,
You are right that what Mconkie said can be interpreted to imply something that is against Holy Scripture. I don’t know 100% if he did not consider your obvious interpretation or he held a beilef that is against core doctrine. But, I do seriously doubt he held your interpretation.

If he thought as you, this statement or philosophy would have been repeated multiple times and been expanded upon by Mconkie, so that there was no doubt in his intention. This lack of repetition and depth of usage clearly indicates a turn of phrase, poor word usage.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s exactly the point: The Trinity doctrine has a specific definition that is held in common by those that profess to be “Trinitarians”. The misunderstandings of some on what the Trinity doctrine is actually stating are misunderstandings, not valid definitions of “The Trinity”. As already mentioned, the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and the orthodox Trinitarian Protestant churches all officially agree on what the Trinity is defined as (hence why the Catholic Church accepts the baptisms of churches that profess Trinitarian belief). Therefore, when you make a statement about “since we are not Trinitarians”, or that the statements by your leaders were about “Trinitarian” arguments, you are addressing those that believe in the Trinity (and my response is therefore as valid as one from an Orthodox, from a Lutheran, an Anglican, etc). If on the other hand you were addressing those that have a misunderstanding of the Trinity (such as those that confuse it with Modalism), then perhaps you should have been more clear on that.

Please provide sources where we can read more about the modalistic tendencies of those around Mormons at the time of these statements.

Would you care to explain to me how, if the Trinity is explained to US in a faulty manner, that we are then at fault for arguing against that explanation? As for the folks around the Mormons, let us look at two of the largest groups around them…Methodists and Baptists. In the official United Methodist doctrine, Article 1, The Confession of Fatih, The Book of Discipline, we read this: “…We believe the one God reveals himself as the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, distinct but inseperable, eternally one in essence and power.”

From this, one can see where modalism can be slipped into rather easily.

The Baptist declaration of faith of the 1830’s, the 'New Hampshire Confession of faith" also emphasizes the One God over the three members, though it uses the word ‘Godhead,’ rather than Trinity.

, Calvinism, which was a thread that ran through most of the beliefs that the early Mormons dealt with (and which impression lasted when they were on their own in Utah) was also a bit different; Calvin struggled with the idea a lot—talking about how the Three Persons were distinct from one another, but that the distinction was voluntary and personal, rather than natural; a sort of split personality by choice. There can be, he taught, no God without the Son, no Son without the Holy Spirit, and no Holy Spirit without the other Two, yet they remain separate; the son subordinate to the Father personally (and voluntarily) , but not in power or essence, and the Holy Spirit proceeding out of the Father and Son (and thus subordinate personally and voluntarily,but not in power or essence.)

In one way…the bit about subordination, his ideas strike a chord of familiarity with Mormons. However, he keeps running into problems with the keeping of the Three together as One God…most of the people I have read who write about Calvin’s views end up emphasizing either the strict separation Calvin liked…or the fact that all three are really one God. Modalism sneaks in here, too, because on the surface, “one God, three masks” seems to fix the angst Calvin was having with the whole concept. It doesn’t, of course…

But it is preachers and teachers struggling with this concept that WE were dealing with, combined with the natural misunderstandings that Mormons were having about what was being explained to them.

In terms of this topic, though, it doesn’t matter whether Mormon leaders were arguning against positions YOU hold. It matters only that they were arguing against what they considered to be a Trinitarian argument. That’s what they were doing. Perhaps they were arguing erroniously, but declaring that their erronious understanding of your Trinitarian beliefs means that they were claiming that God had sex with Mary is even more illogical.

The point is, a strawman argument is still an argument about THAT strawman, not a declaration of something else.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dianaiad
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.

I do not question what you and others may presently believe, Diana. Nor am I trying to change your beliefs. But I am saying that LDS teaching used to be that Heavenly Father and Mary had sexual intercourse that resulted in his spirit-child, Jesus, being born on earth. This is confirmed by the writings I quoted, and many others, which are now spun in a different way. You say that is not the teaching at present. I’m accepting your word on that. But in the past, the teaching was different.

Many Mormon teachings have changed – some by “revelation” – e.g., polygamy has been suppressed on earth, though it is practiced in the “pre-existence” by Heavenly Father and his goddess wives, and it is practiced in the future existence (heaven) by ‘exalted’ Mormons who have become Gods – and the acceptance of Blacks in the Mormon priesthood. Other teachings are just ignored or reinterpreted. For example, Orson Hyde, “apostle” under J Smith and B young, taught in the Journal of Discourses that Jesus was a polygamist who had children. Where did Hyde get that?

In 1980, when a Tale of Two Cities was published, we read “[t]he ‘normal and natural course of events’ … 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” p. 20. In a book published in 2001, we read, “they [Mormons] believe conception [of Jesus] occurred in the ordinary, natural way . . . 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 his spirit body) the Father physically begot … [Joseph] Smith wrote, 'Jesus Christ is heir of this Kingdom – the only begotten of the Father according to the flesh” Inside Mormonism, p. 292. The author, Isaiah Bennett, taught Mormonism in college in Salt Lake City for two years.

And Paul Dupre recently posted on this thread:

Quote:

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”.

I only know what I learned in my investigation of Mormonism years ago – and there is a mountain of documentation out there that supports it. I recognize that the spin is different now.

I’m sorry you are offended.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy