The Book of Mormon, made simple.

[PaulDupre]

When I was LDS, I was dismayed to discover that the LDS “prophets” taught that the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ own wedding. I knew from my reading of the NT that the gospel of John says:

1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.

• John 2:1-2

Who gets “invited” to his own wedding?? Just the first of many demonstrations to me that Mormonism has nothing to do with the bible.

 

[dianaiad]

The Mormon Jesus was a polygamist.

This is but a tiny sample of the documentation, in roughly chronological order.

(President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v2, p210)

(Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 4:259)

. (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 159)
(Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 2:82) (Prophet Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.346, August 7, 1853)

1. Early Mormon leaders were direct descendants of Jesus.

(Oliver B. Huntington Journal, p. 259)
Prophet Lorenzo Snow, and his counselor George Q. Cannon, later declared this doctrine publicly:

(Journal of Pres. Rudger Clawson, pp. 374-375)

Paul, WHAT have you been told, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again about using the Journal of Discourses…or indeed anything but works that WE accept as scripture, as prooftexts for Mormon Doctrine?

That these men may have thought something is one thing. That they even put it forward as theories or as their opinions is another thing…but that doesn’t mean that "MORMONS REALLY BELIEVE THIS,’ any more than Jews and Christians really believe that bats are birds because Moses said they were.

I know that, from very bitter and recent experience, if I mentioned that Catholics believe in slavery because quite a few of your leaders not only said it was perfectly OK, they went to some lengths to make sure the practice prospered, you would be all over me like white on rice. The excuse you will use is that 'Popes are just people, and are infallible only in matters of faith and morals…and then only when they say they are."

At the same time, you insist that YOU have the right to decide when OUR leaders are speaking absolute doctrine and ‘for the church,’ even when WE tell YOU that, guess what…they don’t. In fact, you insist that you are the arbiter of what Mormon Doctrine is, and even hold these men to standards they don’t hold themselves to; that is, in that very Journal of Discourses BY listed the requirements for having something be ‘scripture,’ and thus doctrine…and none of the above quotes work.

In fact, sir, the next time some anti-Mormon quotes the Journal of Discourses to somehow prove that “MORMONS REALLY BELIEVE” something, I’m going to absolutely INSIST that CATHOLICS REALLY BELIEVE every single word that comes out of every single Papal Bull ever issued.

…because believe me, the exact standards apply to both situations. Worse; the Journal of Discourses is a collection of speeches given by leaders of the church to local congregations, transcribed and published half way around the world without the speakers having an opportunity to proofread them for errors.

Papal Bulls, on the other hand, were all issued deliberately under the seal and hand of whatever Pope issued them; they all had plenty of time to parse the details.

So, fair is fair. If you don’t want me insisting that Catholics really believe some of the things that your Popes declared in the bulls, then you have to stop using the Journal of Discourses as if it were scriptural prooftexting for what 'Mormons really believe."

Diana, exceedingly irritated.

 

[zerinus]

Moreover they commit the usual LDS double standard in oversimplifying the “Are Mormons Christian?” question while at the same time asserting that LDS splinter groups are “not Mormons.” A member of any of those groups could respond to that claim in exactly the same way: “But we believe in the ‘Book of Mormon,’ and we baptize by authority as Alma did in the waters of Mormon, and we follow a leader who is a prophet like Mormon!” Apparently negative value judgments against Mormonism by non-Mormons are seen as “myths,” while similar value judgments by orthodox Mormons are clarifications of a misunderstanding.

Those two situations are not comparable. In the case of “Mormons are not Christians” campaign, it is an exclusionary practice. It is aimed at excluding Mormons from the Christian definition. It is a hostile act. In the case of Mormons and its offshoots being called “Mormon,” the exercise is inclusionary—i.e. we don’t want to be known as, identified with, or included among them. The LDS Church is by far the largest and most prominent of the “Mormon” groups; and when people think of the word “Mormon,” they invariably think of us. So when you call those polygamist groups “Mormon,” without further explanation, for example; and it is so reported in the media; it makes people think that we are polygamists, which we are not. That is not comparable with Mormons being called “Christian,” because nobody is going to confuse Catholics, Baptists, or Methodists with Mormons.

If Mormons are not Christians, then what are they? Are they Muslims? Are they Jews? Are they Buddhists? Are they Hindus? Perhaps some will say, they are just Mormons! In that case I can also argue that Catholics are not Christians, they are just Catholics; Baptists are not Christians, they are just Baptists; and Lutherans are not Christians, they are just Lutherans. When Mormons are called Christians, nobody is going to confuse them with Catholics or Lutherans, or Baptists; but when those Mormon splinter groups are called Mormon, people tend to confuse them with us. The two situations you are vastly different; they are not comparable.

 

[soren1]

True, but the mesoamerican theory, we know is wrong.

The Limited Geography Theory is wrong, but not necessarily any Mesoamerican theory. This video sticks with to the actual claims made by Joseph Smith as far as possible, by trying to explain Cumorah in terms of a major Lamanite expansion late in BOM history. Because of the animation, the absurdity of this scenario jumps off the screen, but I respect them for presenting the weird scenario rather than going the low road of historical denial about Smith’s real claims, commonplace among today’s Mormons. They are trying to fit their account to the evidence. It is a bad fit, but they don’t hide from it. That gets them more laughs than they might desire, but it represents to me an attitude of accountability not often seen in LDS media.

Also, didn’t recent DNA prove their was no connection with native americans in the way the lds try to portray?

Mitochondiral DNA has proven Asiatic descent for the Indians. Mormon responses to this tend to focus on the limitation of mitochondrial testing, because it only represents descent through the female line. They also point out the difficulty of determining what genetic markers would have been distinct to Israelites around 600 b.c.

Notwithstanding, the evidence is still very damaging, and the Mormon Church has been altering its claims. Until recently, the introduction to the BOM, edited and mostly written by Bruce McConkie, claimed the Nephites and Lamanites were the “principal ancestors of the American Indians.” But the current preface to the BOM now says instead that they are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” Again, I have more respect for this video, which sticks to the real story.

We already have all sorts of views on Cumorah, as demonstrated by another thread…

I am holding in my hand a Triple Combination printed in 2005. In the last pages, it has many full-color illustrations of historic Mormon sites. Picture #2 shows the hill by Joseph’s home and has this caption:

2. Hill Cumorah and Manchester-Palmyra Area The Angel Moroni directed Joseph Smith to find the gold plates he had buried in this hill. (Hill is center right)

 

[soren1]

Soren, I have to admit that you are correct. Those Mormons who DO this are indeed guilty of the very thing you claim they are.

However, please do not present this as if all Mormons do this, or that it is officially done by the church…because, if you have read my stuff at all, you will know that I have brought this up several times myself. We cannot, as Mormons, claim to be Christians and then use the same argument YOU guys use to deny us that title in order to deny those Mormons who are not LDS the title "Mormon.’

I never have.

I have not seen the posts where you comment on this, but I thank you for making that point. You are personally exempt from that criticism. Nevertheless, I think the official stance of the LDS Church itself reflects the double-standard I have identified. By taking the high road you have parted company with them. As evidence, if you go to the newsroom at lds.org, there is a style guide for the media, which, among other things, instructs reporters on the correct and incorrect usage of the word “Mormon.” Here are two of its rules:

The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms “Mormons,” “Mormon fundamentalist,” “Mormon dissidents,” etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other … churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.”

Not merely does the LDS Church hold as a theological judgment that its splinter groups are not truly Mormon, it seeks to set that judgment as a guideline for the secular media as well. This amounts to saying that people who self-describe as Mormon should not be acknowledged as such, even in secular contexts.

Here let me clarify a point: I was commenting on an inconsistency in LDS standards, but I was not arguing that Mormon’s aren’t Christian, not at least in an absolutist sense. (Whether Mormons are Christian or FLDS are Mormons is irrelevant to the question of the internal consistency of Mormon claims.) I have in fact argued for a long time at MADB that it is legitimate for Mormons to be called Christian. If you read this thread, you will see where I make a case that it is in fact an historically valid stance for a Catholic to acknowledge Mormons as Christian by an inclusive definition of the word, common in historic Christian polemics. If you read my comments along with those of Daniel C. Peterson and another, Protestant poster named rhinomelon, you will get a pretty good grasp of why I hold that, and why I accept the historical response that Dr. Peterson makes to the non-Christian charge in the first 30 pages of his book Offenders for a Word. At one point I write:

I think the best way to determine if someone is Christian in the usual sense is to ask him “Hey, are you a Christian?”

Dr. Peterson agreed with my assessment there. Yet could he have done so is the word “Christian” were replaced with “Mormon” without violating his own Church’s public guidelines?

 

[soren1]

… continued

At the same time, I do respect why people say “Mormons aren’t Christian,” because I understand the theological judgment that underlies it, a judgment with which I agree, namely, that there is a strong difference between our beliefs at the level of fundamental worldview. Because it comprises a difference even in the identity of the God we worship, it is impossible for us to hold you as fellow believers. Even if that opinion were false, and granting that often goes hand-in-hand with overblown rhetoric, I find it insultingly dismissive when Mormons blow it off with glib, “But we have the name ‘Jesus Christ’ on the placard outside our Church!” - as if that addressed the central issue. Nor it is meaningfully engaged in the much better and more dignified “Official Answer from the Mormon Church” in the FAQ at Mormon.org, which cites President Gordon B. Hinckley as follows:

We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. Once upon a time people everywhere said we are not Christians. They have come to recognize that we are, and that we have a very vital and dynamic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. We, of course, accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior…the dominant figure in the history of the world, the only perfect Man who ever walked the earth, the living Son of the living God. He is our Savior and our Redeemer through whose atoning sacrifice has come the opportunity of eternal life. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pray and worship in the name of Jesus Christ. He is the center of our faith and the head of our Church. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and witnesses of His divinity, His life, and His Atonement.

Apart from the extraneous fact of being “widely recognized,” what in this response could not be mimicked by an FLDS member in replying to the instructions set down at the LDS newsroom?

 

[soren1]

Those two situations are not comparable. In the case of “Mormons are not Christians” campaign, it is an exclusionary practice. It is aimed at excluding Mormons from the Christian definition. It is a hostile act.
As I point out in my response to Dianaiad, I do not hold an absolutist view on whether Mormons are Christian, but believe there are different senses of the word involved, different contexts, historical setting, etc. that prevent that question from having a bluntly universal answer. Nevertheless, I will here defend one way of denying that Mormons are Christian, which I admit upfront is context-relative.

The primary grounds that Catholic hold for saying Mormons are not Christian is the definition used at the Second Vatican Council, not for the purpose of slamming anyone, but rather for the purpose of explaining how Catholics can positively interact with people outside the faith. The whole purpose of Vatican II was to build such bridges. I wrote in a recent post on this thread:
soren1;6899280:

The sources to which Catholic ought to refer for guidance in online interaction with Mormons or anyone else are three documents of Vatican II entitled Inter mirifica

, Unitatis redintegratio, and Nostra aetate. Inter Mirifica is about the moral use of technology in social communication; Unitatis redintegratio deals with dialogue and cooperation with other Christians, and Nostra aetate is about dialogue and cooperation with non-Christians. (In this context Mormons count as non-Christians because Vat II uses the term to mean those who accept the Incarnation and Trinity. This does not mean we own a copyright on the word “Christian” or that Mormons have no right to describe themselves as such. But it does mean that our relations with them are interreligious and not ecumenical.)

This is a far more generous stance than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints extends towards is splinter groups, and if you read the documents that I reference here you will find they strongly defy interpretation as a hostile smear campaign.

 

[soren1]

In the case of Mormons and its offshoots being called “Mormon,” the exercise is inclusionary—i.e. we don’t want to be known as, identified with, or included among them. The LDS Church is by far the largest and most prominent of the “Mormon” groups; and when people think of the word “Mormon,” they invariably think of us. So when you call those polygamist groups “Mormon,” without further explanation, for example; and it is so reported in the media; it makes people think that we are polygamists, which we are not. That is not comparable with Mormons being called “Christian,” because nobody is going to confuse Catholics, Baptists, or Methodists with Mormons.

Probably the one context in which I would be most likely to say, “Mormons are not Christian” is precisely when those confusions do occur. Right now the two biggest dangers to the Catholic Church, by far, are the rising tides of Islam and atheism. On both of those fronts, the inclusion of Mormonism in the ranks of Christianity is a significant liability. The enemies of Christianity have noticed the weakness in the rational defense of Mormnism and use it to broadbrush the rest of the Christian world. They love to guilt us with this association. Consider what Richard Dawkins says in The God Delusion:

Another candidate for a purely designed religion is Mormonism. Joseph Smith, its enterprisingly mendacious inventor, went to the lengths of composing a complete new holy book, the Book of Mormon, inventing from scratch a whole new bogus American history, written in bogus seventeenth-century English. Mormonism, however, has evolved since it was fabricated in the nineteenth century and has now become one of the respectable mainstream religions of America – indeed, it claims to be the fastest growing one, and there is talk of fielding a presidential candidate.
What Dawkins wants his reader to infer from the mainstreaming of Mormonism is that if something as preposterous as Joseph Smith’s claims can rise to respectability, it reflects on the whole religious mentality in general. Christopher Hitchens makes this point far more aggressively in God is Not Great, where he devotes a whole chapter to detailing the corrupt origins of religion. More than half of it is about Mormonism. The chapter is not a good work of scholarship; he draws caricatures without informing his reader, as when he claim that in 1978 the LDS Church finally decided that “black people are human beings.” Hitchens follows Dawkins to conclude that the transparent falsehood of Mormonism reflects upon the foolhardiness of theistic thinking in general, and power of religion to exploit gullibility. His cheap shots are obvious, but do not change the main point: secularists have found the weaknesses of Mormonism. It is a liability to the Christian mainstream to allows itself to be unequally yoked to the Mormons. In the same manner, Islamic apologists do not hesitate to quote LDS sources to justify their view that the Trinity is polytheistic, and to criticize all of Christianity on that basis. In the same way they use Jehovah’s Witness sources to show that Jesus was not God, even quoting from the New World Translation.

While I would not hesitate to point out the errors about Mormonism perpetrated by Hitchens and his ilk, my more fundamental response to them is simple: Mormons are not part of us. We are Christians. The fact that I can identify their error, and that Christians in general have a stronger response to Mormonism than the atheists offer is an important part of responding to their claims. But to do that, we need to first distinguish ourselves from you.

If Mormons are not Christians, then what are they? Are they Muslims? Are they Jews? Are they Buddhists? Are they Hindus? Perhaps some will say, they are just Mormons! In that case I can also argue that Catholics are not Christians, they are just Catholics; Baptists are not Christians, they are just Baptists; and Lutherans are not Christians, they are just Lutherans. When Mormons are called Christians, nobody is going to confuse them with Catholics or Lutherans, or Baptists; but when those Mormon splinter groups are called Mormon, people tend to confuse them with us. The two situations you are vastly different; they are not comparable.

This is a problem that a good reading of the Vatican II document I cited could answer for you. You are making a very basic error by confusing different levels of classification. You are treating “Christian” as if it were a single denomination, when it is a broader category embracing different types of ecclesial bodies. In the sense that “Christian” means for Vatican II “a person who accepts the Trinity and Incarnation,” then it does not contain Mormons. For you clearly deny the Trinity, in the sense intended by the Council, and on close examination deny the Incarnation as well. If you take a broader sense, such as “a person who thinks Jesus was the messiah,” then it would include Mormons (though it would also include Muslims). Of course, you will not agree with Vatican II’s use of Christian, but within the context of Catholic theology it is logical. If we are going to teach the gospel to all nations, then we need to examine what our common ground with the nations already is, but that entails defining where our common ground is not. The Trinity and Incarnation are the most central common ground to us, so that is the point where we make our first distinction.

 

[thegreypiper]

Personally, I’m not sure I care very much whether this video is accurate, what Mormons believe, or even whether they merit the name of “Christian,” because it is an outright fraud. Protestants at least may be extended the benefit of the doubt and recognised as sincere, but mistaken, even though many, if not most, repeat ancient errors such as modalism and Arianism. The Unitarians go so far as to describe themselves as a church for people who are not entirely sure about that whole “God business” anyway!

All of which is beside the point. Mormonism was a sheer fabrication out of whole cloth (almost). See, it doesn’t matter if Joe Smith had dug up a three-tiered mitre, copied everything out of the Baltimore Cathechism, and declared himself the real Pope, running a church that was virtually identical to the Roman Catholic one, and with the wandering he did, I guess he could have called that his “Roamin’ Catholic” church.

Here’s an interesting fact or two-- Joe’s older brother was Master of the local Masonic Lodge. Joe petitioned for membership, but got blackballed, for some reason. Six months later, Joe was digging up gold tablets (he claimed), as full of denunciations of Freemasonry as any Papal Bull. And ya know the funny thing? All the Inner Sanctum Mormon stuff, the rituals they do only at the big temples and not at the little local posts, are direct ripoffs of the Masonic degrees! And BTW, it was a Mormon bishop who confirmed that for me. A friend showed me an expose video once, and, as I was at the time in the Masons, I recognised it all, almost exactly. If you see clips of any of the Mormon bigshots, watch them shake hands – its the Masonic 3rd degree grip – with the thumb going in between the knuckles of the other guy’s middle & ring fingers.

So yeah, I don’t really care what the Mormons say or claim.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

That these men may have thought something is one thing. That they even put it forward as theories or as their opinions is another thing…but that doesn’t mean that "MORMONS REALLY BELIEVE THIS,’ any more than Jews and Christians really believe that bats are birds because Moses said they were.

Diana, exceedingly irritated.

Uh, if your people created the ideas in the first place, taught it, and from long time LDS now ex-LDS members on this board, apparently you LDS still believe in this.

James Talmage:* “That child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof;” *

Not in violation of natural law? What’s he trying to say?

*“and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be call the ‘Son of the Highest.’ In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibility of mortality, and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate - after their kind.” *

I find it sickening to read “celestial sireship.” I wonder what was running through his head when he wrote this. I know. It’s obvious to me.

 

[zerinus]

As I point out in my response to Dianaiad, I do not hold an absolutist view on whether Mormons are Christian, but believe there are different senses of the word involved, different contexts, historical setting, etc. that prevent that question from having a bluntly universal answer. Nevertheless, I will here defend one way of denying that Mormons are Christian, which I admit upfront is context-relative.

The primary grounds that Catholic hold for saying Mormons are not Christian is the definition used at the Second Vatican Council, not for the purpose of slamming anyone, but rather for the purpose of explaining how Catholics can positively interact with people outside the faith. The whole purpose of Vatican II was to build such bridges. I wrote in a recent post on this thread:

This is a far more generous stance than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints extends towards is splinter groups, and if you read the documents that I reference here you will find they strongly defy interpretation as a hostile smear campaign.

Probably the one context in which I would be most likely to say, “Mormons are not Christian” is precisely when those confusions do occur. Right now the two biggest dangers to the Catholic Church, by far, are the rising tides of Islam and atheism. On both of those fronts, the inclusion of Mormonism in the ranks of Christianity is a significant liability. The enemies of Christianity have noticed the weakness in the rational defense of Mormnism and use it to broadbrush the rest of the Christian world. They love to guilt us with this association. Consider what Richard Dawkins says in The God Delusion:

Another candidate for a purely designed religion is Mormonism. Joseph Smith, its enterprisingly mendacious inventor, went to the lengths of composing a complete new holy book, the Book of Mormon, inventing from scratch a whole new bogus American history, written in bogus seventeenth-century English. Mormonism, however, has evolved since it was fabricated in the nineteenth century and has now become one of the respectable mainstream religions of America – indeed, it claims to be the fastest growing one, and there is talk of fielding a presidential candidate.
What Dawkins wants his reader to infer from the mainstreaming of Mormonism is that if something as preposterous as Joseph Smith’s claims can rise to respectability, it reflects on the whole religious mentality in general. Christopher Hitchens makes this point far more aggressively in God is Not Great, where he devotes a whole chapter to detailing the corrupt origins of religion. More than half of it is about Mormonism. The chapter is not a good work of scholarship; he draws caricatures without informing his reader, as when he claim that in 1978 the LDS Church finally decided that “black people are human beings.” Hitchens follows Dawkins to conclude that the transparent falsehood of Mormonism reflects upon the foolhardiness of theistic thinking in general, and power of religion to exploit gullibility. His cheap shots are obvious, but do not change the main point: secularists have found the weaknesses of Mormonism. It is a liability to the Christian mainstream to allows itself to be unequally yoked to the Mormons. In the same manner, Islamic apologists do not hesitate to quote LDS sources to justify their view that the Trinity is polytheistic, and to criticize all of Christianity on that basis. In the same way they use Jehovah’s Witness sources to show that Jesus was not God, even quoting from the New World Translation.

While I would not hesitate to point out the errors about Mormonism perpetrated by Hitchens and his ilk, my more fundamental response to them is simple: Mormons are not part of us. We are Christians. The fact that I can identify their error, and that Christians in general have a stronger response to Mormonism than the atheists offer is an important part of responding to their claims. But to do that, we need to first distinguish ourselves from you.

This is a problem that a good reading of the Vatican II document I cited could answer for you. You are making a very basic error by confusing different levels of classification. You are treating “Christian” as if it were a single denomination, when it is a broader category embracing different types of ecclesial bodies. In the sense that “Christian” means for Vatican II “a person who accepts the Trinity and Incarnation,” then it does not contain Mormons. For you clearly deny the Trinity, in the sense intended by the Council, and on close examination deny the Incarnation as well. If you take a broader sense, such as “a person who thinks Jesus was the messiah,” then it would include Mormons (though it would also include Muslims). Of course, you will not agree with Vatican II’s use of Christian, but within the context of Catholic theology it is logical. If we are going to teach the gospel to all nations, then we need to examine what our common ground with the nations already is, but that entails defining where our common ground is not. The Trinity and Incarnation are the most central common ground to us, so that is the point where we make our first distinction.

That is a diversionary tactic. You are kicking up a dust cloud to confuse the issue. The issue is not about whether Mormons are Christians or not; but whether they employ “double standards,” as you alleged, by insisting on not to be lumped up with the “splinter groups” who are not members of our Church, and whom we have nothing to do with. Those who try to lump us together with them by this means do so with malicious intent in order to portray the LDS Church in a negative light; which is the same spirit that motivates those who like to portray the Church as not being “Christian”.

 

[dianaiad]

Uh, if your people created the ideas in the first place, taught it, and from long time LDS now ex-LDS members on this board, apparently you LDS still believe in this.

James Talmage:* “That child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof;” *

Not in violation of natural law? What’s he trying to say?

*“and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be call the ‘Son of the Highest.’ In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibility of mortality, and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate - after their kind.” *

I find it sickening to read “celestial sireship.” I wonder what was running through his head when he wrote this. I know. It’s obvious to me.

May I gently suggest that it is only ‘obvious’ to you because you WANT it to be obvious? You are disenchanted with the church. You will naturally want to believe the negative interpretation of anything to do with it.

We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God…and that this means something considerably more than the way He is OUR Father, in that He created us.
Us…He created. Jesus, He ‘begot.’ There was a difference here in the way Jesus’ physical form was created than the way yours was, in other words.

THAT is the ‘natural law’ that is being referred to. It has nothing to do with the act of sex, but rather the act of procreation…and frankly, since PEOPLE have been getting sperm and eggs together without sex being involved for close to half a century with people, and for a LOT longer than that with animals, are you REALLY going to tell me that GOD could not do it?

The fact is, every single quote from church leaders, when viewed in context, isn’t about sex; it’s about the Trinity…as in Who Jesus’ Father was, not how the conception occurred; in other words, Mary may have been ‘overshadowed’ by the Holy Ghost, but it is God the Father Who is Jesus’ Father…not the Holy Ghost. That may be equally problematic to Catholics and other trinitarians, but nowhere near as …titilating.

As to how this can be? Well, he is God. Are you really going to tell me that He cannot do something that mere PEOPLE can do? Shoot, for that matter, I know a girl who gave birth to a child for her sister. She not only didn’t have sex with the father of that child, she wasn’t even the genetic mother of the child; her sister was.

Oh, yes…and she was a virgin at the time of the birth, too. It has to be one of the greatest gifts I have ever heard of being given from one woman to another.

For that matter, I found out here, within the last year, that there are Catholics who honestly believe that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was not only virgin at His birth, but that she REMAINED virgin; that somehow she didn’t go through childbirth as normal women do, but that through some miracle she was pregnant–and then suddenly she wasn’t and held the infant Christ child in her arms. When I ask how that’s possible, I get…'it’s a miracle."

OK then. How can God be the physical Father of Jesus without having sex with Mary? It’s a miracle.

…and unlike most Christians, Mormons have nowhere to waffle with this one. The Book of Mormon, remember, calls Mary a virgin in the very strict, English “never having had sex” definition of the term. People have been arguing about whether the bible version of the word means exactly that…Mormons can’t argue against it.

If Mary was a virgin, that means she didn’t have sex with anybody. OR Anybody.

 

[Publisher]

May I gently suggest that it is only ‘obvious’ to you because you WANT it to be obvious? You are disenchanted with the church. You will naturally want to believe the negative interpretation of anything to do with it.

We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God…and that this means something considerably more than the way He is OUR Father, in that He created us.
Us…He created. Jesus, He ‘begot.’ There was a difference here in the way Jesus’ physical form was created than the way yours was, in other words.

THAT is the ‘natural law’ that is being referred to. It has nothing to do with the act of sex, but rather the act of procreation…and frankly, since PEOPLE have been getting sperm and eggs together without sex being involved for close to half a century with people, and for a LOT longer than that with animals, are you REALLY going to tell me that GOD could not do it?

The fact is, every single quote from church leaders, when viewed in context, isn’t about sex; it’s about the Trinity…as in Who Jesus’ Father was, not how the conception occurred; in other words, Mary may have been ‘overshadowed’ by the Holy Ghost, but it is God the Father Who is Jesus’ Father…not the Holy Ghost. That may be equally problematic to Catholics and other trinitarians, but nowhere near as …titilating.

As to how this can be? Well, he is God. Are you really going to tell me that He cannot do something that mere PEOPLE can do? Shoot, for that matter, I know a girl who gave birth to a child for her sister. She not only didn’t have sex with the father of that child, she wasn’t even the genetic mother of the child; her sister was.

Oh, yes…and she was a virgin at the time of the birth, too. It has to be one of the greatest gifts I have ever heard of being given from one woman to another.

For that matter, I found out here, within the last year, that there are Catholics who honestly believe that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was not only virgin at His birth, but that she REMAINED virgin; that somehow she didn’t go through childbirth as normal women do, but that through some miracle she was pregnant–and then suddenly she wasn’t and held the infant Christ child in her arms. When I ask how that’s possible, I get…'it’s a miracle."

OK then. How can God be the physical Father of Jesus without having sex with Mary? It’s a miracle.

…and unlike most Christians, Mormons have nowhere to waffle with this one. The Book of Mormon, remember, calls Mary a virgin in the very strict, English “never having had sex” definition of the term. People have been arguing about whether the bible version of the word means exactly that…Mormons can’t argue against it.

If Mary was a virgin, that means she didn’t have sex with anybody. OR Anybody.

Friend Diana,

Have you read the book “How Wide the Divide”? It’s dialog between a Mormon and an Evangelical, each sharing and answering questions concerning the nature of God and other areas…I bought my copy at Deseret Books a few blocks from the Portland Temple.

The Mormon brother touches on just such “arguements”…and explains Mormon belief in detail and the “Why’s” and “Wherefore’s” such statments were made in the first place.

It was a very informative book…and one which Catholics and Protestants both would benefit reading…Evangelical beliefs are much closer and in some cases exactly like Catholic belief. I found it very informative…and helped assist me in trying to understand Mormon belief…I like to think I’m more understanding of LDS belief now than I was before.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The fact is, every single quote from church leaders, when viewed in context, isn’t about sex; it’s about the Trinity…as in Who Jesus’ Father was, not how the conception occurred; in other words, Mary may have been ‘overshadowed’ by the Holy Ghost, but it is God the Father Who is Jesus’ Father…not the Holy Ghost. That may be equally problematic to Catholics and other trinitarians, but nowhere near as …titilating.

No, this is not problematic for Catholics and other orthodox Trinitarians. We believe that Jesus’ Father is God the Father, not the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, or in the words of the Nicene Creed He was born of the virgin Mary “by the power of the Holy Spirit”, however Jesus is clearly the son of God the Father, not the son of the Holy Spirit. This is standard Trinitarianism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, this is not problematic for Catholics and other orthodox Trinitarians. We believe that Jesus’ Father is God the Father, not the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, or in the words of the Nicene Creed He was born of the virgin Mary “by the power of the Holy Spirit”, however Jesus is clearly the son of God the Father, not the son of the Holy Spirit. This is standard Trinitarianism.

It is seen in Diana’s post that Mormons still hold to an idea of some sort of divine artificial insemination. Making Jesus a demi-god. This is the “problem” she is trying to project onto Christian belief. That we have to somehow explain the union of a god-seed with a human-egg. Brigham Young did it by teaching a sexual union, as any man and woman would have. (Which is rooted in the Mormon belief of their god the father as god-man.) She’d like to explain Young’s teaching away by saying he was describing something that didn’t exist in his time: medical procedures that produce a child outside of normal intimate relationships.

Besides this nonsense, she has hit on heresy.

From the CCC

**464 **The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.

**496 **From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without human seed” (Council of the Lateran). The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own.

 

[Murdock]

Diana is correct that the 19th Century Prophets and Apostles, quoted from the Journal of Discourses, that Jesus was married to three wives and had children, were expressing opinions which are not remotely binding on Mormons.

The Church does not teach that Jesus was married at all. On the other hand, I am not aware that the Church teaches that Jesus was NOT married. Of course, there is a lot that I am not aware of outside of the BOM, the D&C and the POGP. So, if Diana corrects me, I will not be surprised.

My working assumption is that I and other Mormons are free to decide if we agree or disagree with the opinions of the 19th Century Prophets and Apostles that Jesus was married to three wives and had children. I am pretty confident that 99% or more, maybe much more, of Mormons do not believe that Jesus was married at all.

I am among the 1% or less, maybe much less, of Mormons who do believe that Jesus was married to Mary, Martha and Mary and had children with them. I have four bases for this belief: 1. The opinions expressed in the Journal of Discourses. 2. My assumption that Jesus “needed” in his mortal life to experience marriage and parenthood so that he could feel as we do. 3. It is just too painful for me to think that Jesus never had the love of and for a wife or wives and children in his mortal life. 4. The whisper of the spirit.

Murdock

 

[RebeccaJ]

The fruits of Mormonism revealed.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Those two situations are not comparable. In the case of “Mormons are not Christians” campaign, it is an exclusionary practice. It is aimed at excluding Mormons from the Christian definition. It is a hostile act. In the case of Mormons and its offshoots being called “Mormon,” the exercise is inclusionary—i.e. we don’t want to be known as, identified with, or included among them. The LDS Church is by far the largest and most prominent of the “Mormon” groups; and when people think of the word “Mormon,” they invariably think of us. So when you call those polygamist groups “Mormon,” without further explanation, for example; and it is so reported in the media; it makes people think that we are polygamists, which we are not. That is not comparable with Mormons being called “Christian,” because nobody is going to confuse Catholics, Baptists, or Methodists with Mormons.

If Mormons are not Christians, then what are they? Are they Muslims? Are they Jews? Are they Buddhists? Are they Hindus? Perhaps some will say, they are just Mormons! In that case I can also argue that Catholics are not Christians, they are just Catholics; Baptists are not Christians, they are just Baptists; and Lutherans are not Christians, they are just Lutherans. When Mormons are called Christians, nobody is going to confuse them with Catholics or Lutherans, or Baptists; but when those Mormon splinter groups are called Mormon, people tend to confuse them with us. The two situations you are vastly different; they are not comparable.

Well then we don’t want to be included in the group that says God the Father has a body, or believe that we were all born previously in spirit bodies. We don’t want people to think we believe those things. So you see it’s not a case of us being exclusionary it’s simply a case of us not wanting to be included in your group or being misunderstood as holding those beliefs. How is this different than your simply not wanting to be included with other groups like say the Community of Christ among others?

 

[Murdock]

Soren is correct that it is the Church’s position that the polygamist sects should not be referred to as “Mormons” regardless of their use of the Book of Mormon. And it is not Diana’s place to disagree with the Church. In an October 1998 General Conference talk, President Hinckley said: “There is no such thing as a Mormon Fundamentalist. It is a contradiction to use the two words together.”

I find persuasive Orson Scott Card’s 2009 National Review Online article:

“When the Mormon prophet Wilford Woodruff declared in 1890 that it was God’s will that Latter-day Saints no longer take multiple wives, some Mormons clung to the ‘Principle of Plural Marriage’ and rejected the authority of the president of the church.

This is akin to what happened when Protestants declared that they would no longer follow the [P]ope, and polygamist sects are about as Mormon now as Baptists are Catholic.”

To be Mormon is to follow the Prophet. D&C 1:138, D&C 21:5, D&C 132:7, A of F 1:5. None of us are perfect, but the FLDS and the other polygamous sects have exercised their agency to choose apostasy and rebellion.

Murdock

 

[zerinus]

Well then we don’t want to be included in the group that says God the Father has a body, or believe that we were all born previously in spirit bodies. We don’t want people to think we believe those things. So you see it’s not a case of us being exclusionary it’s simply a case of us not wanting to be included in your group or being misunderstood as holding those beliefs. How is this different than your simply not wanting to be included with other groups like say the Community of Christ among others?

Let me assure you that we don’t want to be included with the group that teaches that God is a three headed monster with one body. That is why we stick to the doctrine of the Apostasy. We believe that Christianity as it is practiced today is an apostate institution which has corrupted the teachings of the original Christian Church. We believe that the LDS Church is a Restoration of the original and true Christian Church—and that is what we mean when we identify ourselves as being “Christian”. By that statement we identify ourselves as being the only true Christian Church in the world today. It does not mean that we want to be identified with the apostate churches of today.