R
- Status
C
Chris-WA
Guest
dknight, I have enjoyed reading your posts from the Mormon perspective. You seem quite reasonable in your approach and you write with charity. I do take some exception to the portion of the quote above from the prophet Joseph Fielding Smith. If Joseph Fielding Smith wrote something to the church membership that is out of harmony with the revelations, then he would automatically, in my estimation, become a false prophet. The LDS Church cannot have it both ways. If they claim their leadership to be made up of genuine prophets, then those prophets cannot teach error when it comes to matters of faith. To do so makes that person a false prophet. So there can be no allowance for prophets teaching falsehoods when it comes to religion. If they do teach error, you can’t throw out the error and still hold them in esteem as a genuine prophet. Either he is a prophet or he is not. Now, that doesn’t mean that they have to be right on other things that don’t pertain to religion. But if they teach something to the membership regarding the faith, then either they teach true doctrine or error, and if they teach error, they are a false prophet. If the LDS Church makes allowance for prophets to teach error without losing their prophetic authority, then to claim that said church is led by prophets means little.
Yes, you’ve got that part right.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
Did you know that this exact accusation was made by some outside the church during its earliest days? The accusation was made by those who had heard rumors about the Eucharist, but did not know the full story. What does that tell you about what the early church believed about the Eucharist? From Scott Hahn’s book, The Lamb’s Supper:“Cannibalism” and “human sacrifice” were charges often whispered against the the first generations of Christians. The early Christian apologists took them up in order to dismiss them as gossip. Yet through the distorted lens of the pagans’ gossip, we can see what was the most identifiable element of Christian life and worship.It was the Eucharist: the re-presentation of the sacrfice of Jesus Christ, the sacramental meal where Christians consumed Jesus’ body and blood. It was the distortion of these facts of faith that led to pagan calumnies against the Church–though it’s easy to see how the pagans misunderstood. In the early Church, only the baptized were permitted to attend the sacraments, and Christians were discouraged from even discussing these central mysteries with non-Christians. So the pagan imagination was left to run wild, fueled by small scraps of fact: “this is My body…this is the cup of My blood…Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood…” The pagans knew that to be a Christian was to participate in some strange and secretive rites.Even the pagans knew that the Eucharist was more than just some symbolic representation of the Last Supper, though their perspective was skewed by gossip.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
".
Very good point. It’s such a bizarre thing to say and believe in, and why doesn’t the Mormon church ust come out and say what it really means by this statement. Shouldn’t it read, “all human beings are spirit sons or daughters of Heavenly Father and one of His wives?” I mean, what do they think we think “heavenly parents” means? Talk about intentionally being non-specific…
M
Margarite
Guest
I don’t know if anyone mentioned this before, but there is a really good book out called “Inside Mormonism” it is written by a priest who became Mormon and then came back again. It goes into allot of detail about their beliefs and how they are wrong. I cannot view the video on my work computer, but I know that (my aunt is Mormon) Mormons believe that God is only better than everyone else because he started the journey first. So someday every good Mormon will be as good and powerful as God is now, but he will always be the best because he was first. It is complicated. Also, and I think this is horrible, Mormon men can go to the temple and write down next to their name any woman who they like even if they are not married to them and once the woman’s name is written next to the man’s she will be with him in the next life as one of his wives. I don’t know how it works if more than one man writes down her name, but it is a strange religion anyways. Oh, yeah, and if a man does not like his wife he need not write her name next to his and if no man chooses a woman she won’t go to I am not sure what they call it, but I guess you will get the idea if I call it heaven. Thankfully my aunt is showing signs of coming back. She asked to go to midnight mass on Christmas with us 
She was disillusioned by the fact that the prophet told them the world would end in the year 2000. She is wealthy so she bought each of her relatives $2000 worth of food storage :Yuck:! And as we all know the world didn’t end
uch:
She was disillusioned by the fact that the prophet told them the world would end in the year 2000. She is wealthy so she bought each of her relatives $2000 worth of food storage :Yuck:! And as we all know the world didn’t end
uch:
B
BartBurk
Guest
I never heard anything like this when I was a Mormon. I think that is misinformation.
No Mormon prophet ever said the world would end in 2000. They were careful to avoid such statements.Thankfully my aunt is showing signs of coming back. She asked to go to midnight mass on Christmas with us
She was disillusioned by the fact that the prophet told them the world would end in the year 2000. She is wealthy so she bought each of her relatives $2000 worth of food storage :Yuck:! And as we all know the world didn’t end
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Hi Margarite,
Welcome to the forums!
I think you are confusing several things here.
The first thing is that they believe that if a man is married to more than one woman in the temple, then all of those women will be his wives in eternity, provided they all make it to the highest level of the celestial kingdom. It is not as simple as writing down a name. A temple marriage between a willing man and woman must really take place. Sometimes a deceased person who was unmarried will be married in the temple by proxy to a living person, but that is arranged by the temple officials, not by a man simply writing down a name.
The second thing is that they have taught that the husband will be resurrected by Jesus, and then the wives will be resurrected by their husband by the husband calling their secret temple names. If the resurrected husband feels that a wife is unworthy to be with him in eternity, he will simply not call her to himself. Mormon women have thus been cautioned to treat their husbands well.
Hope this helps. And again, welcome.
Paul (a former Mormon)
Welcome to the forums!
I think you are confusing several things here.
It is true that Mormons believe that the Heavenly Father is of the same species as human beings and is a resurrected human himself, only more advanced because he “started sooner”. But they believe that only those who strictly obey the Mormon commandments will become gods like the Heavenly Father and create and populate their own worlds with their goddess wives.
This is a conflation and distortion of two separate Mormon teachings.
The first thing is that they believe that if a man is married to more than one woman in the temple, then all of those women will be his wives in eternity, provided they all make it to the highest level of the celestial kingdom. It is not as simple as writing down a name. A temple marriage between a willing man and woman must really take place. Sometimes a deceased person who was unmarried will be married in the temple by proxy to a living person, but that is arranged by the temple officials, not by a man simply writing down a name.
The second thing is that they have taught that the husband will be resurrected by Jesus, and then the wives will be resurrected by their husband by the husband calling their secret temple names. If the resurrected husband feels that a wife is unworthy to be with him in eternity, he will simply not call her to himself. Mormon women have thus been cautioned to treat their husbands well.
The Mormon prophet did not predict the end of the world. There are a number of self-appointed prophets in other religions that did predict the end in 2000, but not the Mormon prophet.Thankfully my aunt is showing signs of coming back. She asked to go to midnight mass on Christmas with us
She was disillusioned by the fact that the prophet told them the world would end in the year 2000. She is wealthy so she bought each of her relatives $2000 worth of food storage :Yuck:! And as we all know the world didn’t end
Hope this helps. And again, welcome.
Paul (a former Mormon)
D
dknight
Guest
RebeccaJ,
I have to break this up because it is WAY too long in its entirety for the system to let me post it (almost 10,000 characters!!)
*As to my comment that I have never met a LDS who believes that God the Father had sex with Mary, there was no other way for me to say it. I couldn’t say no LDS believes it because I haven’t met every member and asked them about it. For all I know, there may be an otherwise well-intentioned, good hearted member who is either ill informed enough or mentally unbalanced enough to believe it. I can only say that it is not church doctrine. *
As has already been pointed out, and you seem to be ignoring, this was taught as doctrine from JS time into the 1970’s. I was taught this, in seminary and gospel doctrine. So mormons who believe this?..If they are ill informed it was their own church who has ill informed them. If they are mentally unbalanced then all who believe what mormonism has taught are mentally unbalanced.
**LDS believe that Jesus Christ is literally the son of God the Father in the flesh. Christ is literally the biological offspring of God the Father. In reference to an earlier post of mine, half of Christ’s DNA came from Mary and half came from God the Father. Does this necessitate a physical union the same way my wife and I had to have a physical union to produce our children? No. To say that a sexual union between God the Father and Mary is the only way God could have brought about the birth of Christ shows either a profound lack of imagination or lack of faith in God to work a miracle.
Every single prophet of the church attests to the fact of Christ’s paternity. I am still waiting for someone to produce a single instance where a church leader has come out and said that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary. I have searched and searched and can’t find one. Do any church members believe that God the Father had sex with Mary? Maybe. I don’t know. Does anyone in a position of leadership and authority (past or present) believe it? Maybe. I don’t know and I don’t care. If they do then that’s their problem. People are entitled to their opinions. Is it church doctrine? No. I don’t know how I can be any clearer. For anyone on the forum who insists that the LDS church believes such a thing, oh well. That’s just too bad. **
I have to break this up because it is WAY too long in its entirety for the system to let me post it (almost 10,000 characters!!)
*As to my comment that I have never met a LDS who believes that God the Father had sex with Mary, there was no other way for me to say it. I couldn’t say no LDS believes it because I haven’t met every member and asked them about it. For all I know, there may be an otherwise well-intentioned, good hearted member who is either ill informed enough or mentally unbalanced enough to believe it. I can only say that it is not church doctrine. *
As has already been pointed out, and you seem to be ignoring, this was taught as doctrine from JS time into the 1970’s. I was taught this, in seminary and gospel doctrine. So mormons who believe this?..If they are ill informed it was their own church who has ill informed them. If they are mentally unbalanced then all who believe what mormonism has taught are mentally unbalanced.
**LDS believe that Jesus Christ is literally the son of God the Father in the flesh. Christ is literally the biological offspring of God the Father. In reference to an earlier post of mine, half of Christ’s DNA came from Mary and half came from God the Father. Does this necessitate a physical union the same way my wife and I had to have a physical union to produce our children? No. To say that a sexual union between God the Father and Mary is the only way God could have brought about the birth of Christ shows either a profound lack of imagination or lack of faith in God to work a miracle.
Every single prophet of the church attests to the fact of Christ’s paternity. I am still waiting for someone to produce a single instance where a church leader has come out and said that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary. I have searched and searched and can’t find one. Do any church members believe that God the Father had sex with Mary? Maybe. I don’t know. Does anyone in a position of leadership and authority (past or present) believe it? Maybe. I don’t know and I don’t care. If they do then that’s their problem. People are entitled to their opinions. Is it church doctrine? No. I don’t know how I can be any clearer. For anyone on the forum who insists that the LDS church believes such a thing, oh well. That’s just too bad. **
D
dknight
Guest
*Consider the following quote concerning Jesus:
He was the literal, biological son of an immortal, tangible Father and Mary, a mortal woman. – Encyclopedia of Mormonism
One can go online and find many other such quotes that, more or less, say the same thing. We LDS believe Jesus to be the literal son of God the Father and Mary, that is to say that half of Jesus’ DNA comes from Mary and half from God the Father. We are completely ignorant of the mechanism by which this was accomplished but no such statements should be construed as meaning that God the Father had sex with Mary. Such an assumption reveals a lot about the mindset of the accuser and shows nothing about LDS teaching.*
*
Defending this in this fashion only shows that you don’t know your own church’s history.*
**My comments from my post right before this one should suffice for this as well. **
*Orson Pratt wrote the following in The Seer:
“…the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife …”
This sounds pretty damning but t should be noted that The Seer was never published or endorsed by the church. In fact, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles repudiated the publication. In August 23, 1865 issue of the Deseret News:
“…the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.”*
*
The Deseret News never has been an official or endorsed publication of the mormon church.*
**Wow! [rubbing eyes in disbelief] I thought I was the only one allowed to pull the “not official or endorsed” card! Just teasing RebeccaJ! Just a little good hearted fun! I’ve got nothing but love for you! However, I am a little surprised that when the First Presidency says something (and yes, you’re right, Deseret News never has been an official or endorsed publication of the LDS church) that affirms Orson Pratt was mistaken in his belief, you say the publication in which they repudiated him was not official or endorsed by the LDS church. Mormons take all kinds of heat for doing the same exact thing. **
*Any member of the LDS church is free to believe that our Father in heaven had sex with Mary if that is what they choose. Sadly, a person who chooses to believe this is wrong. *
Not according to your own prophets.
**I have already written, “…produce a single instance where a church leader has come out and said that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary.” Still waiting. **
He was the literal, biological son of an immortal, tangible Father and Mary, a mortal woman. – Encyclopedia of Mormonism
One can go online and find many other such quotes that, more or less, say the same thing. We LDS believe Jesus to be the literal son of God the Father and Mary, that is to say that half of Jesus’ DNA comes from Mary and half from God the Father. We are completely ignorant of the mechanism by which this was accomplished but no such statements should be construed as meaning that God the Father had sex with Mary. Such an assumption reveals a lot about the mindset of the accuser and shows nothing about LDS teaching.*
*
Defending this in this fashion only shows that you don’t know your own church’s history.*
**My comments from my post right before this one should suffice for this as well. **
*Orson Pratt wrote the following in The Seer:
“…the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife …”
This sounds pretty damning but t should be noted that The Seer was never published or endorsed by the church. In fact, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles repudiated the publication. In August 23, 1865 issue of the Deseret News:
“…the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.”*
*
The Deseret News never has been an official or endorsed publication of the mormon church.*
**Wow! [rubbing eyes in disbelief] I thought I was the only one allowed to pull the “not official or endorsed” card! Just teasing RebeccaJ! Just a little good hearted fun! I’ve got nothing but love for you! However, I am a little surprised that when the First Presidency says something (and yes, you’re right, Deseret News never has been an official or endorsed publication of the LDS church) that affirms Orson Pratt was mistaken in his belief, you say the publication in which they repudiated him was not official or endorsed by the LDS church. Mormons take all kinds of heat for doing the same exact thing. **
*Any member of the LDS church is free to believe that our Father in heaven had sex with Mary if that is what they choose. Sadly, a person who chooses to believe this is wrong. *
Not according to your own prophets.
**I have already written, “…produce a single instance where a church leader has come out and said that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary.” Still waiting. **
D
dknight
Guest
*On a similar note, we LDS believe we are the offspring of God the Father and, as a logical extension, we believe in a Heavenly Mother. However, we don’t teach this belief as part of our doctrine. That is, there is nothing about a Heavenly Mother in any of the standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price), or in any official church publication.
*
*“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” (1995) declares that all human beings are spirit sons or daughters of “heavenly parents”.
A google search of lds.org for “heavenly parents” produces 594 results.*
**
Doh! You got me (partly anyway)! I admit it. I really blew it with my choice of words on one of my previous posts (still working on that perfection thing!) I wrote, “I will concede that there is a passing reference in a hymn (don’t have a hymnal with me) that says reason tells us we have a mother in heaven. Personally, I think branding a hymnal an “official church publication” and using a single sentence in it that is admittedly an assumption (not a hard and fast church doctrine).” Good grief! Hind sight is 20/20 and I can see now that I failed miserably in what I was trying to say. I will attempt to clarify now. We believe in heavenly parents. That is, we believe that God the Father does have a companion in heaven. The point I was trying to make was that the standard works are silent on Heavenly Mother. We accept that we have one but anything beyond that is pure speculation. Heavenly Mother is something God the Father has chosen to keep veiled in mystery. That is why outside of affirming we have heavenly parents, we don’t go into the topic of Heavenly Mother as a matter of formal instruction because there isn’t anything to instruct. We just don’t know anything about her. I hope that makes more sense and you’ll forgive my failed attempt at eloquence!
My google search of lds.org for “heavenly parents” produced only 575 results (strange).
My google search of lds.org for “Heavenly Mother” produced 36 results broken down as follows:
One reader comment: “Mom, I think that you are feeling some of what our heavenly mother may have felt as she watched us all leave for our earthly missions.” This hit is repeated four times. I don’t know why. They all go to the same page.
A number of Ensign articles. Just like above, the articles show more than one hit but all the links go to the same page.
Relief Society Manual (repeated hits for the same page) that says: “You are made in the image of our heavenly mother.”
Primary 2 Manual : “We also lived with our heavenly mother and all the rest of Heavenly Father’s children.”
A document entitled “Our Search for Happiness: that says: “Everyone, before coming to this earth, lived with Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.”
A manual entitled, “The Latter-Day Saint Woman” that repeats word-for-word what is in the Relief Society Manual indicated above.
And lastly, the article “Clarifications to Religion Writers and Editors Regarding Newsweek Report" in which the church gives its response to a Newsweek article on the LDS church. The response is as follows: “While the official Proclamation on the Family affirms that each human being is a beloved son or daughter of heavenly parents, there are no teachings about a Heavenly Mother in Latter-day Saint scripture.” This is the point I was TRYING to make.
In an earlier post, I wrote, “… we LDS believe we are the offspring of God the Father and, as a logical extension, we believe in a Heavenly Mother. However, we don’t teach this belief as part of our doctrine.” Man, did I screw that up!! I guess that’s the danger of writing something in haste and not having anyone proof my material. The quote from “Clarifications to Religion Writers and Editors Regarding Newsweek Report" above, I think, says what I was trying to communicate.
The LDS church is ignorant of the mechanism by which God the Father brings forth spirit children. Is it through a sexual union with our heavenly mother? I don’t know. If it is, fine. I don’t see a problem or see what’s so offensive about it. My problem is with Ed Decker trying to sensationalize something about which neither we nor he know anything in a deliberate attempt to denigrate the church.
In summation:
*
*“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” (1995) declares that all human beings are spirit sons or daughters of “heavenly parents”.
A google search of lds.org for “heavenly parents” produces 594 results.*
**
Doh! You got me (partly anyway)! I admit it. I really blew it with my choice of words on one of my previous posts (still working on that perfection thing!) I wrote, “I will concede that there is a passing reference in a hymn (don’t have a hymnal with me) that says reason tells us we have a mother in heaven. Personally, I think branding a hymnal an “official church publication” and using a single sentence in it that is admittedly an assumption (not a hard and fast church doctrine).” Good grief! Hind sight is 20/20 and I can see now that I failed miserably in what I was trying to say. I will attempt to clarify now. We believe in heavenly parents. That is, we believe that God the Father does have a companion in heaven. The point I was trying to make was that the standard works are silent on Heavenly Mother. We accept that we have one but anything beyond that is pure speculation. Heavenly Mother is something God the Father has chosen to keep veiled in mystery. That is why outside of affirming we have heavenly parents, we don’t go into the topic of Heavenly Mother as a matter of formal instruction because there isn’t anything to instruct. We just don’t know anything about her. I hope that makes more sense and you’ll forgive my failed attempt at eloquence!
My google search of lds.org for “heavenly parents” produced only 575 results (strange).
My google search of lds.org for “Heavenly Mother” produced 36 results broken down as follows:
One reader comment: “Mom, I think that you are feeling some of what our heavenly mother may have felt as she watched us all leave for our earthly missions.” This hit is repeated four times. I don’t know why. They all go to the same page.
A number of Ensign articles. Just like above, the articles show more than one hit but all the links go to the same page.
Relief Society Manual (repeated hits for the same page) that says: “You are made in the image of our heavenly mother.”
Primary 2 Manual : “We also lived with our heavenly mother and all the rest of Heavenly Father’s children.”
A document entitled “Our Search for Happiness: that says: “Everyone, before coming to this earth, lived with Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.”
A manual entitled, “The Latter-Day Saint Woman” that repeats word-for-word what is in the Relief Society Manual indicated above.
And lastly, the article “Clarifications to Religion Writers and Editors Regarding Newsweek Report" in which the church gives its response to a Newsweek article on the LDS church. The response is as follows: “While the official Proclamation on the Family affirms that each human being is a beloved son or daughter of heavenly parents, there are no teachings about a Heavenly Mother in Latter-day Saint scripture.” This is the point I was TRYING to make.
In an earlier post, I wrote, “… we LDS believe we are the offspring of God the Father and, as a logical extension, we believe in a Heavenly Mother. However, we don’t teach this belief as part of our doctrine.” Man, did I screw that up!! I guess that’s the danger of writing something in haste and not having anyone proof my material. The quote from “Clarifications to Religion Writers and Editors Regarding Newsweek Report" above, I think, says what I was trying to communicate.
The LDS church is ignorant of the mechanism by which God the Father brings forth spirit children. Is it through a sexual union with our heavenly mother? I don’t know. If it is, fine. I don’t see a problem or see what’s so offensive about it. My problem is with Ed Decker trying to sensationalize something about which neither we nor he know anything in a deliberate attempt to denigrate the church.
In summation:
- Heavenly Mother part of our doctrine? Yes!
- Anything about her in the standard works? No.
- Consequently, do we teach anything about her outside of her existence? No.
- Are we, as spirit children, procreated through some kind of sexual union between our Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother? Maybe. Don’t know. Don’t care.
**
C
coleraine
Guest
well, these things are true, but it seems that they were taken out of context. i mean, the general message is true, but maybe not all the details.
cole (catholic)
cole (catholic)
M
majick275
Guest
and after all of this we are still faced with the biggest problem of mormonism…the belief that our God is an exalted man who is on eof many exalted men in a long line of exalted men and since we are his literal offspring then we too may become Gods like him who will produce spirit offspring of our own someday who will need to go through an earthly experience and have a savior too.
That has always been LDS doctrine and is in my opinion absolute blasphemy.
as to quotes by LDS leaders on Mary and Elohim,
The statement in given that the seer was repudiated only states that it contained some inaccuracies. it never specifies which ones. moving forward we have these:
*
“The Holy Ghost is the messenger of the Father and the Son. Mortal beings
could not endure the presence of the Father without the Spirit overshadowing
them, and that was the mission of the Holy Ghost, but not to beget the Son of
God, THAT WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE FATHER. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten
Son of God the Father in the flesh, and in holding to this doctrine President
Brigham Young is in perfect accord with the teachings in the Bible.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, p. 128).
“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in
his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the
Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a
tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as
the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”
(Brigham young JoD 1:50-51, also “Answers”, vol. 5, p. 121).*
That has always been LDS doctrine and is in my opinion absolute blasphemy.
as to quotes by LDS leaders on Mary and Elohim,
The statement in given that the seer was repudiated only states that it contained some inaccuracies. it never specifies which ones. moving forward we have these:
*
“The Holy Ghost is the messenger of the Father and the Son. Mortal beings
could not endure the presence of the Father without the Spirit overshadowing
them, and that was the mission of the Holy Ghost, but not to beget the Son of
God, THAT WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE FATHER. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten
Son of God the Father in the flesh, and in holding to this doctrine President
Brigham Young is in perfect accord with the teachings in the Bible.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, p. 128).
“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in
his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the
Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a
tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as
the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”
(Brigham young JoD 1:50-51, also “Answers”, vol. 5, p. 121).*
M
majick275
Guest
continued
“The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD–was begotten
of his father, as we were of our fathers.” (Brigham Young JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).
“Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily OFFSPRING; that
is to say, Elohim is LITERALLY the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and
also of the BODY in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh…”
( ‘The Articles of Faith’ by James E. Talmage, p. 466).
“We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of
God in the flesh…how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was
begotten of his Father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was
begotten not of God, but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. THIS IS
NONSENSE. Why will they not believe the Father when He says that Jesus Christ
is His Only Begotten Son? Why will they try to EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH AWAY and
make mystery of it?” ( Joseph F. Smith, ‘Box Elder Times,’ Sep.
22, 1914).
“When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the
world and take a tabernacle, the Father came himself and favored that Spirit
with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was
begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same being who is the Father of
our spirits, AND THAT IS ALL THE ORGANIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND
YOU AND ME.” ( 'Discourses of Brigham Young," 1925 edition, p.
77).
“The Holy Ghost came upon Mary, her conception was under that influence, even
of the spirit of life; our Father in Heaven was the Father of the Son of
Mary…” ( Joseph Fielding Smith, 'Man: His Origin and
Destiny), p. 345.)
“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 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…He had a lawful right
to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a
Son…Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the
wife of Joseph while in this
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.”
Apostle Orson Pratt, “The Seer,” Oct. 1853, p. 158).
“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.” (Brigham Young Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866).
“Joseph was a mortal soul in premortality to be blessed with the signal honor
of coming to earth and acting as THE LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE SON OF THE ETERNAL
FATHER IN THE FLESH.”
(“The Life and Teachings of Jesus”, 1974, p. 29)
“She, (Mary), heavy with child, traveled
all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give
birth to A HALF-DEITY. No other man in the history of this world of ours has
ever had such an ancestry–God the Father on the one hand and Mary the Virgin
on the other.” (ibid)
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in THE MOST LITERAL SENSE. The
body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was SIRED by that same Holy
Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father.” (Ezra Taft Benson Teachings of ET Benson, p. 6).*
“The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD–was begotten
of his father, as we were of our fathers.” (Brigham Young JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).
“Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily OFFSPRING; that
is to say, Elohim is LITERALLY the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and
also of the BODY in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh…”
( ‘The Articles of Faith’ by James E. Talmage, p. 466).
“We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of
God in the flesh…how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was
begotten of his Father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was
begotten not of God, but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. THIS IS
NONSENSE. Why will they not believe the Father when He says that Jesus Christ
is His Only Begotten Son? Why will they try to EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH AWAY and
make mystery of it?” ( Joseph F. Smith, ‘Box Elder Times,’ Sep.
22, 1914).
“When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the
world and take a tabernacle, the Father came himself and favored that Spirit
with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was
begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same being who is the Father of
our spirits, AND THAT IS ALL THE ORGANIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND
YOU AND ME.” ( 'Discourses of Brigham Young," 1925 edition, p.
77).
“The Holy Ghost came upon Mary, her conception was under that influence, even
of the spirit of life; our Father in Heaven was the Father of the Son of
Mary…” ( Joseph Fielding Smith, 'Man: His Origin and
Destiny), p. 345.)
“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 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…He had a lawful right
to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a
Son…Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the
wife of Joseph while in this
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.”
Apostle Orson Pratt, “The Seer,” Oct. 1853, p. 158).
“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.” (Brigham Young Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866).
“Joseph was a mortal soul in premortality to be blessed with the signal honor
of coming to earth and acting as THE LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE SON OF THE ETERNAL
FATHER IN THE FLESH.”
(“The Life and Teachings of Jesus”, 1974, p. 29)
“She, (Mary), heavy with child, traveled
all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give
birth to A HALF-DEITY. No other man in the history of this world of ours has
ever had such an ancestry–God the Father on the one hand and Mary the Virgin
on the other.” (ibid)
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in THE MOST LITERAL SENSE. The
body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was SIRED by that same Holy
Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father.” (Ezra Taft Benson Teachings of ET Benson, p. 6).*
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
This is in direct conflict with what every other mormon has ever told me. What I have been told before is if it is not in your scriptures, it is not doctrine.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Certainly, I was poking at this illogical thing that mormons do:
a-a mormon prophet said it therefore, it is the word of God
b-a mormon prophet said it therefore, it was not the word of God
c-a mormon apostle said it, eh, just ignore it unless it is something that you are really fond of then ok, go ahead and believe it. But don’t be telling anyone else that it is doctrine.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
"THE BOX ELDER NEWS, THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1915 PRESIDENT JOS. F. SMITH’S ADDRESS SUNDAY MORNING (Following is a stenographic report of the address President Joseph F. Smith delivered at the Sunday morning session of the recent quarterly conference.-Ed.)
…]We are all sons and daughters of God, and I want the little folks to hear what I am going to tell you. I am going to tell you a simple truth, yet it is one of the greatest truths and one of the most simple facts ever revealed to the children of men. Yet it is one that has been mystified and philosophized by men, more perhaps, than any other truth ever uttered by the mouths of the prophets. If I talk to the little folks so they understand the parents and teachers will be able to understand…]
The Saviour, Jesus Christ, begotten of God, was in the likeness of his Father, resembling him so nearly that He said on one occasion that “He that hath seen me has seen the Father.” I see a little boy. He has hair, he has eyes and he has a face which resembles his father’s, and when he grows up we say that we cannot tell him from his father, so perfect is resemblance between the boy and his father. The boy looks like the father and the father looks like the boy; he looks a little older; of course you can tell the father from the boy because he is a little older than his son. Jesus Christ was created just like his Father; had the same features; same frame, same kind of body and was so like Him when you saw him you saw an exact likeness or similitude of His Father.
You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers you all know that don’t you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father.", Clark, James R, Messages of the First Presidency Volume 4, Bookcraft, 1970 (p.327-329)
You can of course choose to not believe what one of your prophets said (see my above post).
C
Chris-WA
Guest
dknight, I have to say that after reading all your posts and then reading the responses, it seems quite clear to me exactly what early LDS prophets were trying to say in regards to Jesus’ conception. Joseph F. Smith’s quote above really makes it clear–Christ was begotten in the same manner that children are begotten. And we all know how children are begotten. He said everything that needed to be said without using the word “sex.” I think denying the Mormon teaching of a sexual union between God and Mary is pretty much useless at this point. There’s too much evidence the other way.
Z
zerinus
Guest
This is based on the false assumption that a prophet should never make a mistake in his entire life. Can you show me one verse in the Bible that confirms that assumption?
zerinus
P
PaulDupre
Guest
No, Z.
An example of a mistake is “I think the Cubs will win the penant this year.”
An example of teaching error in faith and morals is teaching a completely false notion of the nature and character of God.
The Mormon prophets have taught that:
*God the Father is Adam, who was born on another planet and transported to the garden of Eden to populate the earth with one of his goddess wives.
There are countless gods and God the Father is just one more, in direct oppostition to the bible which says that there is only one God.
God did not create all things, but rather arose from within creation and organized some of its existing matter, which is in direct opposition to the bible.
God did not create the spirit of man, and does not have the power to do so. This directly contradicts the bible.
God the Father sired Jesus by having physical sex with Mary, in direct contradiction of the bible.
The blood of Christ is not sufficient to cleanse us from all sin, in direct contradiction of the bible. Some sins, like murder and race-mixing, must be paid for by the shedding of the sinner’s own blood.*
There are many more, but you get the idea. If your “prophets” teach error in matters of faith and morals, then they are not prophets at all.
God love you,
Paul
C
Chris-WA
Guest
C’mon Zerinus, I never said a prophet cannot make a mistake in his entire life. What I did say is that a true prophet cannot teach error in matters of faith. If your LDS prophets, be they current or old, teach error in matters of the faith, then they are false prophets, because one who teaches error is leading the flock astray. No one can look back in history and make excuses for what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Joseph F. Smith taught if that doesn’t happen to agree with what the current prophet teaches. I don’t care what any of them think about politics or medicine or science, but I do care what they have to teach about religion. So they can make all the mistakes they want in those other areas. But they are most certainly not allowed to teach error in matters of faith. If they do, how are the members supposed to tell the difference between what is correct and what is not?
It’s very interesting to see how modern LDS are so quick to claim the apostacy of the early church when it allegedly started teaching error. Yet when the same thing happens in Mormonism from time to time, it is automatically dismissed as “individual speculation,” having no bearing on the authenticity of the prophet. I wish Mormons would apply the same standards to their own prophets as they do to the early Christian church leaders. I guess you can’t because if you made the same allowances for error in the early church you as you allow for people like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, you wouldn’t be able to claim apostacy in the first place.
- Status