Reading through Luke with my Mormon Friends

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lucy_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lucy_1

Guest
During our isolation, I suggested that my friends and I read a chapter of Luke a day and briefly text each other any thoughts about it. They are Mormon, and although I’m familiar with LDS doctrine and culture, it’s been a while since I’ve read Luke. Is there anything we are going to come across (ie Christ’s divinity etc) or questions I could pose about specific verses which might nudge them in the right theological direction? The wife is a third generation LDS, or something, so I doubt I’ll make much headway, but I want to take advantage of the opportunity.
 
Were it me, and this is just me, it’s not a tactic that works for everyone, I would wait until they try to use the Gospel of Luke to prove Mormon Doctrine, and then explain to them what my issues are with how they’re using it
 
Start with the virgin birth - Luke talked to Mary to get the information it could not of come from anyone else. That is not their story - I believe they have God having a physical relationship with her. Ask them who Satan’s mother is he apparently is Jesus brother I have always wondered I could google it.

They are always changing their doctrine to try to align it to Christianity - its changed a lot over the 50 yrs.
 
Last edited:
If there is something in Luke that goes against their doctrine be ready for their response “That must be improperly translated”. You could of course ask them what the “proper” translation is and what their source is.

Pax and good luck
 
Latter-day Saint here… I hope you enjoy reading Luke!
Is there anything we are going to come across (ie Christ’s divinity etc) or questions I could pose about specific verses which might nudge them in the right theological direction?
We Latter-day Saints believe that Christ is a divine being.
That is not their story - I believe they have God having a physical relationship with her.
This statement regarding Latter-day Saint belief is incorrect.
Ask them who Satan’s mother is he apparently is Jesus brother I have always wondered I could google it.
The Bible plainly states that Satan is one of the sons of God.

Job 1:6 One day, when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, the satan also came among them.

I hope this helps…

Job 2:1 One day, when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, the satan also came with them.
 
I believe they have God having a physical relationship with her.
They do. Gaz has consistently denied it in spite of the many quotes that people have posted here which say otherwise. My family believes it and teaches it to me. I’ve heard it from a number of LDS sources. It may not be “official” but that’s what they believe. Jesus was conceived after the manner of flesh, the same way you and I were conceived.
 
The Bible plainly states that Satan is one of the sons of God.

Job 1:6 One day, when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, the satan also came among them.
One day, my children came to celebrate my birthday and a dog also came among them.

Clearly, the dog was one of my children.
 
40.png
gazelam:
The Bible plainly states that Satan is one of the sons of God.
Job 1:6 One day, when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, the satan also came among them.
One day, my children came to celebrate my birthday and a dog also came among them.

Clearly, the dog was one of my children.
You are in luck! Not everyone has an explanation about what’s written in the original Hebrew on this topic, but I do!

From Scriptural Mormonism: Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"

In Job 1:6, we read the following:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

In this text, Satan is presented as being among the “Sons of God” (בני האלהים) This can be seen in the verb יצב (to take [their] stand/position”) and that Satan is said to be in their “midst,” that is, he belongs among their ranks, clearly demonstrating that the theology of Job holds to a “Satan” who has real, ontological existence, in contradistinction to some Christadelphian interpretation of the “Satan” texts in Job. When one examines the phrase, “among them” (KJV), one finds that the Hebrew is a phrase consisting of the prefixed preposition (בְּ) meaning “in/among” and (תָּוֶךְ). When one examines the other instances of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, it denotes someone being a member of a group, not independent thereof (e.g., Exo 28:33; Lev 17:8, 10, 13; Num 1:47; 5:3; 15:26, 29, etc.); indeed, commentators such as David J.A. Clines states that the phrase regularly denotes membership of the group in question (See Clines, Job 1-20 [Word Biblical Commentary, 1989], 19). The bare term תָּוֶךְ also denotes membership, not independence, of the group in question (cf. Gen 23:10; 40:20; 2 Kgs 4:13).

Furthermore, the “Satan” in Job 1:6, in Hebrew, is not just the bare term (שָׂטָן), meaning an “adversary,” which, in and of itself, can denote anyone who opposes another, whether divine or not (e.g., the angel of the Lord is referred to as an adversary or שָׂטָן in Num 22:22), but is coupled with the definite article (השטן), “ the satan,” which denotes the supernatural tempter (cf. Zech 3:2); one should compare this with similar Greek locutions in the LXX and NT such as such as ο σατανας (Sirach 21:27; Matt 12:26; Mark 3:26; 4:15; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1 cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Tim 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7); ο διαβολος (Matt 4:1,5,8,11; 13:39; 25:41; Luke 4:2,3,6,13; 8:12; John 8:44; 13:2; Acts 10:38; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim 3:6, 7; 2 Tim 2:26; Heb 2:14; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8, 10; Jude 1:9; Rev 2:10; 12:12; 20:10) and ο πειραζω (Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5), all denoting the external, supernatural tempter in most of Christian theologies (some small groups denying a supernatural Satan notwithstanding).
 
My family believes it and teaches it to me. I’ve heard it from a number of LDS sources. It may not be “official” but that’s what they believe.
All of us are at different places in our understanding.
Jesus was conceived after the manner of flesh, the same way you and I were conceived.
Jesus was conceived after the manner of the flesh, but NOT the same way you and I were conceived. Mary was a virgin before conception, during the pregnancy, and after the delivery. Jesus shares the physical attributes of God the Father and Mary just like we all share the physical attributes of our parents. The same thing occurs with invitro fertilization. The child is conceived without intimate physical contact and shares the physical attributes of both parents. This is not hard.

For a thorough treatment of Mary from a Latter-day Saint perspective see Behold the Mother of My Lord: Toward a Mormon Mariology. And you can now download it for free! (And you’ll be running rings around your family members on the topic!)
 
Jesus was conceived after the manner of the flesh, but NOT the same way you and I were conceived.
• Bruce R. McConkie (LDS ‘General Authority’): “…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 … There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord’s coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple” [Mormon Doctrine, 456-547, 466, 468.]
 
40.png
gazelam:
Jesus was conceived after the manner of the flesh, but NOT the same way you and I were conceived.
• Bruce R. McConkie (LDS ‘General Authority’): “…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 … There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord’s coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple” [Mormon Doctrine, 456-547, 466, 468.]
You forgot to include this part…

"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” (1 Ne. 11:13-21), was “overshadowed” by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place “by the power of the Holy Ghost” resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine , 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 822.)

Read the book!
 
You forgot to include this part…

"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father.
I didn’t forget anything. You just demonstrated how Mormonites think and turn things on their heads. Mary was a virgin because she “knew no man” and since God was not a “man” then him having sex with her did not violate her virginity. That’s how Mormonites explain it and if you deny that then you are only fooling yourself, not us, and I don’t think you are fooling yourself. I think you’re being deliberately dishonest about what Mormonites teach.
 
40.png
gazelam:
You forgot to include this part…

"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father.
You just demonstrated how Mormonites think and turn things on their heads. Mary was a virgin because she “knew no man” and since God was not a “man” then him having sex with her did not violate her virginity.That’s how Mormonites explain it and if you deny that then you are only fooling yourself, not us, and I don’t think you are fooling yourself.
What do you mean by '‘and since God was not a “man”’?!?!

Latter-day Saint belief is that God the Father is a glorified or exalted Man. This is plainly taught in the Pearl of Great Price and the Bible.

Moses 6:57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.

John 8:17, 18 Even in your law it is written that the testimony of two men can be verified. I testify on my behalf and so does the Father who sent me.

And it goes without say that Christ is referred to as the “Son of Man” about a gazillion times in the Bible. That Man would be God The Father.
[Mormon Doctrine, 456-547, 466, 468.]
Can’t you do better that provide a reference that spans over 90 pages with no edition? Someone wanting to follow along and look up the original quote to verify is unable to do so.
 
I put “man” in quotes for the very reason that you responded as you did, because there’s a difference between a “man” and a “glorified man” or an “exalted man” and that’s the way Mormons spin the whole virgin thing to keep from painting themselves into a corner. If you deny that, you’ve been sleeping again.

And to be honest, I admit that it’s weak to quote someone like Bruce McConkie, because he was probably one of the strangest eggs hatched from the Mormonite nest. Here’s a common example of the kinds of things that Mormonites say or do:

BRM in 1982 - We do not worship the Son . . .

BRM in 1985 (“I Believe in Christ”) - I’ll worship him with all my might . . .
 
Last edited:
Can’t you do better that provide a reference that spans over 90 pages with no edition? Someone wanting to follow along and look up the original quote to verify is unable to do so.
You’re kidding me, right? It was a typo copied from another source. Someone wanting to look it up can google it in 10 seconds. You must think little of the intelligence of the people reading here. Well, that was obvious a long time ago . . .
 
Last edited:
Is there anything we are going to come across (ie Christ’s divinity etc) or questions I could pose about specific verses which might nudge them in the right theological direction?
I will be interested about your discussion when you get to Luke 16:16.
 
Scripture study with a Mormon will be fruitless. They’ve been taught their whole lives to prooftext, so you will only get their standard prooftexting…as demonstrated in this thread…not to mention a good measure of anti-Catholicism thrown in just for fun.

The Mormon will be working on proselytizing you…an invitation to their Sunday service is forthcoming (once the COVID-19 restrictions are lifted).
 
Last edited:
Mormonism clearly teaches that Jesus was conceived by sexual reproduction between their Heavenly Father and Mary.

Various Mormons theorize on what divine sexual reproduction entails. The longest lived theory, taught as doctrine by Brigham Young, was that Jesus was conceived by their Heavenly Father with Mary, in the same way that all humans are conceived.

But BY is not the only one who has taught something, officially, unofficially, or officially made unofficial.

Like all things Mormon, individual Mormons are taught and believe as they want. The BY teaching is accepted and believed by a lot of Mormons. But others believe things like, divine artificial insemination.

A common thing among Mormons is to just shelve these types of questions, and accept the underlying doctrine that their Jesus is a literal son of their Heavenly Father and Mary. The mechanics not known and not terribly important to them.

Bringing up BY’s teaching by non-Mormons is viewed as anti-Mormon in nature, making a conversation in a scriptural study type environment, non productive.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top