Questions for Mormons..

[dianaiad]

Truly now?

Maybe it’s just me, but does that not describe the physical act of reproduction?

It’s just you, Janet.

These quotes also describe the very physical and mortal action of procreation. You know and I know that this does not require sex today, right? All these statements emphasize the idea that God is the physical father of His Son, Jesus Christ, making Him the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. That makes Him different from any other person who was ever born, in that God the Father is not only spiritually His Father, but physically, too.

But note; it is talking about God’s relationship to His SON, not His relationship to Mary.

None of those statements mention sexual intercourse between Mary and God. They all emphasize God’s relationship to His Son…to show that God the Father is Jesus’ Father, and nobody else is. They emphasize that Jesus is the physical Son of God–His Only Begotton Son, unique.

So we know by this that God caused Mary to be pregnant with His Son; half of Jesus’ physical genetics are, indeed, that of God the Father.

Are you really going to tell me that God can’t do that without having sex with Mary?
Truly now?

Diana, who really doesn’t understand why people can’t take 'no, we don’t believe that God had sex with Mary" for an answer. What, have I done something horrific here? Have I disproved the National Enquirer claim that Elvis didn’t really pose for all those velvet paintings or something?

 

[Religio71]

Everybody’s doctrine can be looked at through critical eyes. Just look how the catholics are ignoring my comments about the catholic doctrine of infant baptism. Their stategy is to attack the person.

Debating doctrine is a complete waste of time and energy. The mormons are always playing with the black pieces in chess on this board. You don’t think that catholics have a difficult time defending their doctrine on protestant threads? They sure do…

 

[Jerusha]

I am not afraid of offending those who offended me first. I am tired of being a shadow-person, afraid of those who hate me simply because of who I am.

Sometimes cliches, to those unfamiliar with them, are very accurate. That is why they get overused.

 

[dianaiad]

I am not afraid of offending those who offended me first. I am tired of being a shadow-person, afraid of those who hate me simply because of who I am.

Sometimes cliches, to those unfamiliar with them, are very accurate. That is why they get overused.

…and I have treated you like a ‘shadow person,’ when, precisely? I have shown my 'hate for you because of who you are" WHERE, precisely? I don’t know you. I don’t know where you live, what you do, who you are. All I know about you is what you write—and even then, I only know what you write about Mormons. If you don’t like the way I react to that, perhaps you could be less mean-spirited, hateful and frequently deliberately inaccurate.

Religio, for instance, is rather good; an ex-Mormon who actually is ACCURATE about what we believe, the majority of the time. S/he may not agree with it any more, but at least s/he disagrees with the doctrines we actually hold. We may not have a meeting of the minds, but the questions we pose are answered in the mind, in the heart, and in the spirit. We fence with words, with honesty and with courtesy.

You don’t go for the mind, Jerusha. You go for the throat–but you are fencing with a feather.

I hope you have had a very nice weekend, though.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pretty much…please pardon my cynicism, but I know where you are going with this, don’t I?

Where?

I do have an ultimate question in mind, but I’m curious to know what you think it is…

 

[why_me]

I only have one person on ‘ignore,’ whyme, and it’s not you!!!

I think that Charlotte was aware of the misspelling and the purpose. It’s just that she was probably taking the high road and ignoring it; even to the point of not bothering to correct it, and allowing Jerusha to keep the responsibility for it.

I gave her the benefit of doubt because of her tone. She seemed innocent. Glad you do not have me on ignore. I have some catholics put me on ignore, I would not want a mormon too put me on ignore.

I have to admit that I have been through a lot on the mormon threads. I think that I need a shrink. :bounce: And you seem to have good patience. That is a good quality for these threads.

 

[why_me]

Religio, for instance, is rather good; an ex-Mormon who actually is ACCURATE about what we believe, the majority of the time. S/he may not agree with it any more, but at least s/he disagrees with the doctrines we actually hold. We may not have a meeting of the minds, but the questions we pose are answered in the mind, in the heart, and in the spirit. We fence with words, with honesty and with courtesy.

Religio is a doctrine person. As a mormon she or he was probably into doctrine too. I am sure that a gospel doctrine teacher would have been her or his heaven on earth. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as he or she can respect a person who just doesn’t care about doctrine. People can practice religion in many ways. Some are into doctrine and some are into practice. In the end, both should respect the other.

 

[Religio71]

…and I have treated you like a ‘shadow person,’ when, precisely? I have shown my 'hate for you because of who you are" WHERE, precisely? I don’t know you. I don’t know where you live, what you do, who you are. All I know about you is what you write—and even then, I only know what you write about Mormons. If you don’t like the way I react to that, perhaps you could be less mean-spirited, hateful and frequently deliberately inaccurate.

Religio, for instance, is rather good; an ex-Mormon who actually is ACCURATE about what we believe, the majority of the time. S/he may not agree with it any more, but at least s/he disagrees with the doctrines we actually hold. We may not have a meeting of the minds, but the questions we pose are answered in the mind, in the heart, and in the spirit. We fence with words, with honesty and with courtesy.

You don’t go for the mind, Jerusha. You go for the throat–but you are fencing with a feather.

I hope you have had a very nice weekend, though.

Thank you diana! I even read LDS blogs as well to see how members present their beliefs. If I see a comparison to Catholicism, I correct any misconceptions (the Trinity and “saints” (as in, only those canonized are saints) are common ones) without saying anything about LDS beliefs. The only thing I get annoyed with is people that say they are Catholic then don’t think Catholics beliefs are important, and still believe doctrines from other churches, which are in clear opposition to the Catholic Church. I’m tired of wishy-washy Catholics that are sometimes seen as the “face” of Catholicism. I’m sure you’ve noticed my views on this

 

[Religio71]

I gave her the benefit of doubt because of her tone. She seemed innocent. Glad you do not have me on ignore. I have some catholics put me on ignore,** I would not want a mormon too put me on ignore. **

I have to admit that I have been through a lot on the mormon threads. I think that I need a shrink. :bounce: And you seem to have good patience. That is a good quality for these threads.

 

[Religio71]

Religio is a doctrine person. As a mormon she or he was probably into doctrine too. I am sure that a gospel doctrine teacher would have been her or his heaven on earth. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as he or she can respect a person who just doesn’t care about doctrine. People can practice religion in many ways. Some are into doctrine and some are into practice. In the end, both should respect the other.

 

[Religio71]

Here I was thinking that the practice of a religion comes from the doctrines of that religion that, you know, DEFINE a religion from another one?

 

[dianaiad]

Where?

I do have an ultimate question in mind, but I’m curious to know what you think it is…

Now…

nah. Why should I do that? If I’m right, I ruin it for you. If I’m wrong, then I’ve just given you a new idea to go with.

I think I’ll wait and see what you do with it. If I’m right, I won’t go “AHA!” more than once, and if I"m wrong, I’ll let you know…and feel silly.

 

[dianaiad]

I gave her the benefit of doubt because of her tone. She seemed innocent. Glad you do not have me on ignore. I have some catholics put me on ignore, I would not want a mormon too put me on ignore.

I have to admit that I have been through a lot on the mormon threads. I think that I need a shrink. :bounce: And you seem to have good patience. That is a good quality for these threads.

Odd. For some reason, “Patience” doesn’t come up when I am doing any self assessment…but thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now…

nah. Why should I do that? If I’m right, I ruin it for you. If I’m wrong, then I’ve just given you a new idea to go with.

I think I’ll wait and see what you do with it. If I’m right, I won’t go “AHA!” more than once, and if I"m wrong, I’ll let you know…and feel silly.

Fair enough.

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you diana! I even read LDS blogs as well to see how members present their beliefs. If I see a comparison to Catholicism, I correct any misconceptions (the Trinity and “saints” (as in, only those canonized are saints) are common ones) without saying anything about LDS beliefs. The only thing I get annoyed with is people that say they are Catholic then don’t think Catholics beliefs are important, and still believe doctrines from other churches, which are in clear opposition to the Catholic Church. I’m tired of wishy-washy Catholics that are sometimes seen as the “face” of Catholicism. I’m sure you’ve noticed my views on this

uhm…yeah, I have. I appreciate your approach.

I’m learning a great deal about Catholicism from you and people like you. Sometimes, though, it’s hard to know what to ask.

 

[dianaiad]

Here I was thinking that the practice of a religion comes from the doctrines of that religion that, you know, DEFINE a religion from another one?

One would think so, but…

sometimes not. Sometimes, when I compare two Christian belief systems, I see that the basic doctrines are very similar…but that the culture/day to day observances are very different indeed. On the other hand, if I have the temerity to point this OUT to either one or both, I will get some rather indignant comments back, about how different this point of doctrine is, or that one—and they don’t look all that different to me.

For instance, the various views on music in church; some will allow full on rock, hip hop and other very active and “modern” music during their worship services. Some will not allow any music at all. Some allow strings (as long as they aren’t guitars…) and certain types of music, but not others.

This one thing can affect the culture of the church goers greatly, but the reasoning behind these policies can turn on a syllable. No real, land mark doctrine difference…

At least, not to the outsider.

 

[dianaiad]

Fair enough.

Thank you. Besides, if I AM right, I need some time to prepare the appropriate, succinct and reasonable answer!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have a King James Version of the Bible published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, UT.

In Isaiah 43, I read:
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
In Isaiah 44, I read:
6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

If God, who is all-knowing and has perfect foreknowledge states, “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me”, “beside me there is no God”, and “I know not any”, how is it that Mormonism proposes that those who follow its tenets will become gods?

 

[dianaiad]

I have a King James Version of the Bible published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, UT.

In Isaiah 43, I read:
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
In Isaiah 44, I read:
6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

If God, who is all-knowing and has perfect foreknowledge states, “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me”, “beside me there is no God”, and “I know not any”, how is it that Mormonism proposes that those who follow its tenets will become gods?

Ok, that isn’t where I thought you were going.

…I need to go look up some stuff. You derailed my train of 'come back."

 

[Janet1983]

These quotes also describe the very physical and mortal action of procreation. You know and I know that this does not require sex today, right?

Was it natural to conceive without intercourse during the 1860s?? What else would you call “natural action” if not sexual intercourse?

“These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. 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.”

The father came down and he… (well you can imagine…)

But note; it is talking about God’s relationship to His SON, not His relationship to Mary.

Oh, yes? Well it is in a different passage… if you meant that you are right…

“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**. On this account infidels have called the Savior a bastard. This is merely a human opinion upon one of the inscrutable doings of the Almighty. That very babe that was cradled 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. This answer may suffice you—you need never inquire more upon that point.”

The Seer:

“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 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; 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. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for His own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the 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.”