As a Mormon said on CARM’s Mormonism forum:
“Mary was no longer a virgin after having sex with God the Father. Jesus was born of a virgin, a virtuous young woman, who up to that point, did not have sex with any man.”
Or as an ex-Mormon wrote on the same forum:
“I was LDS. It was explained to me that the spirit overcame Mary and that a sexual union between Elohim and Mary took place (because the spirit overcame her she had no memory of the event). She was still a ‘virgin’ because intercourse did not happen with a human. This is what I was taught and there were plenty of quotes from leaders that were used to support this idea. I was a convert and I required a LOT of teaching about this concept.”
It’s a serious issue. And it still matters.
I talked the night of the above video with a descendant of James Talmage about the mrm.org/virgin-birth issue. He was upset that I was criticizing Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie over their denial of the virgin birth. I asked him if he personally believes the New Testament is compatible with the idea of God the Father coming down to have physical relations with Mary and he said he didn’t want to talk about it because the issue was too “sacred”.
Mormons are all over the map on this issue. Some have never heard of it and others have and go either way on it. But more importantly, from my observation when Mormons do hear about it they either practice revisionist history or chalk it up as not important enough to question their allegiance to the Mormon Church. Mormon leaders get a free pass on this one.
All that said, I was very, very surprised how many people I encountered last night who agreed with Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie on the issue.
I can understand how some Mormons would vehemently insist they’ve never heard of this issue and that they’re certain almost no one in the Church believes it (or is open to it). But after only a cursory informal surveying of people and a historical study of the issue, it very quickly becomes dishonest not to admit it is a traditional and unrepudiated extant issue that still needs to be dealt with. By “informal surveying” I mean,of course, more than asking the superficial question, “Do you believe in the virgin birth?” I mean probing underneath it and asking meaningful questions.
What kinds of answers you get from Mormons often have to do with geography, age, generation, influences, and most importantly, whether you probe deeply enough. A Mormon who says they believe in the virgin birth in my experience will, a few minutes after probing and prying, sometimes admit either that they are either redefining “virgin” to mean “never had sex with a MORTAL man”, or to mean, “she was a virgin BEFORE the conception of Jesus”, or that they just lean toward the traditional virgin birth position but not strongly enough to outright repudiate the idea that God had sex with Mary.
Like the God Never Sinned issue, there is a spectrum one has to learn to recognize when speaking of the not-so-virgin-birth issue, and not simplistically speak of. That goes for folks on both sides, Mormon and evangelical. Evangelicals shouldn’t stereotype or sloppily generalize Mormons as embracing the views of Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie, but neither should Mormons, anxious to defend the image of their Church and people, be in a state of denial over the problem.
PS It’s my birthday today. Celebrate it with me by staying on topic, OK? 🙂
Update: Bored in Vernal wrote a response here over at Mormon Matters. She writes,
“There is no doubt that the idea of physical relations between God and Mary has been clearly advocated in the Church by such authorities as Brigham Young [1], Orson Pratt [2], Heber C. Kimball [3], Joseph F. Smith, [4], Joseph Fielding Smith [5], James E. Talmage [6], Melvin J. Ballard [7], J. Reuben Clark [8], Bruce R. McConkie [9], and Ezra Taft Benson [10]. Mormons believe that Christ was literally the Son of God in the flesh, and he was conceived in a natural, physical way according to eternal law. In explaining this, the aforementioned leaders gave their views on how it was accomplished. Despite this, many members do not agree, are unaware of the idea, or prefer not to discuss it. It is certainly understandable that some feel it is a sacred subject. Some feel that it is merely speculation which does not affect the LDS doctrinal position on the nature of Christ. Others find it distasteful because it conjures up issues of celestial polygamy or spiritual incest. There are those who would like to skirt the issue by postulating that Mary may have been impregnated by some means such as artificial insemination. But I see no reason, if God has a body and parts, that he would not use his parts.”
New Tract
There is a new Brigham Young “billion dollar bill” tract available at the MRM store here. Here is the text of the tract:
On July 8, 1860, Brigham Young, Mormonism’s second president, said, “That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being… He was begotten by God our heavenly Father” (Journal of Discourses 11:268).
According to Young and other LDS leaders, the seed of Heavenly Father produced Jesus Christ in a literal, physical fashion. Despite being God’s preexistent spirit daughter, “…the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father” (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 158). Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote, “Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers… There is nothing figurative about his paternity: he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 547,742).
To explain this concept to children, the 1972 Family Home Evening manual—an official LDS Church publication—used an illustration that included silhouettes of a man, woman, and little child. It read, “Daddy + Mommy = You.” A parallel illustration added, “Our Heavenly Father + Mary = Jesus” (p. 126). “So you see,” the article quoted sixth LDS president Joseph F. Smith, “Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body.”
Matthew 1:18 says “Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost,” contradicting Mormonism’s rendering of the Virgin Birth doctrine. Questions? Disagree? Check out www.mrm.org/virgin-birth or www.gotforgiveness.com.
Sub asks: is your heart so wrenched with illness towards Mormons that no holds are barred?.
Mine is, Thanks for asking
I can definitely see why the Lord almost universally refuses to give us any details regarding his power or works. Describing the virgin birth as being conceived by the “power of God” and “overshawdowed by the Holy Ghost” prevents all kinds of mockery.
The irony here is that Smith said the Book of Mormon was translated by the “gift and Power of God”. I imagine Smith wanted to leave it at that. But he was pressed and so he told everyone how it was done. It’s a no win situation for Smith. CAn you imagine what the MRM group would say if all they new about the BoM translation was that it was done by the “power of God”? The secrecy accusations would be ridiculous. Why don’t the EV’s think that Mark, Matthew, Isaiah and the lot are shrouding the virgin birth in secrecy and ambuguities by refusing to give details?
DOTF,
are you seriously trying to suggest that God is HIDING the details to prevent mockery of His Word?
Is there any book on earth that draws more mockery that the Bible?
God, when He created everything, said He SPOKE it into existence. YOu know what? I believe that. Not because I believe that He is was a man, and has lips, and gained a lot of knowledge, etc. I believe that He has the power to create every and anything just by expressing it. And I believe He used the word “spoke” because He can not express to our puny, infantile little minds, how He did it.
And when He describes the events surrounding Mary becoming pregnant, I believe it’s just as He says. There’s nothing to hide, but possibly a lot He can’t say, because we can’t understand how He could do it. We have our ways. He has His.
But to think He’s hiding? oooooh pleeeeease.
One of the responses offered by our LDS guests on
this topic is that God has’nt told us the “small
details” of how the Virgin birth occurred so that
means we can ignore the public teachings of LDS
prophets and Apostles on this subject.God did’nt
reveal the small details of how He created the
earth, but He told us He did.We actually would not
have comprehended the “small details” at all!
This is the way it is with all miracles.The virgin
birth is a miracle, it was’nt natural.
LDS leaders have taken to describe this event.
Since, in their view, “the christian world” is in
darkness concerning the things of God, they step
up and exercise their authority and shed light
on this doctrine, mankind needs to know the truth.
It is said that LDS leaders fulfill their role as
Prophets and Apostles by interpreting the written
word for the LDS faithful.Their interpretation
of the virgin birth is readily available.The words
they used were chosen to convey their thoughts and
convictions on this important doctrine. When they
taught in solemn assembly it was to them that the
saints looked to for guidance in rightly dividing
the written Word.One such word used by them was,
“sire”.
I was raised on a horse ranch(still live on a
small part of it) An adult male horse is called
a stallion.On offical documents declaring a colt’s
breeding lineage, the father of the colt is called
the “SIRE”. This is the term that was picked by
some LDS leaders to interpret the “small details”
of how Mary became pregnant.
DefenderOfTheFaith,
“Why don’t the EV’s think that Mark, Matthew, Isaiah and the lot are shrouding the virgin birth in secrecy and ambuguities by refusing to give details?”
We don’t. We believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. And it is not just Ev’s. Catholics and Orthodox do as well . . . even Muslims do. We believe that God suspended the laws of nature (miracle) we don’t believe that God must have worked within nature (craftsman vs. creator) to accomplish the virgin birth.
Sub,
Matthew and Mark?
What part of παρθενος don’t you understand? By not taking a side, you are taking a side? Do you affirm what BY, Pratt, McConkie, and Talmage had to say on the matter or do you reject it? “We don’t know” and “it isn’t clear” is a side. Do reject that the constant witness of the church has been that Jesus was conceived in a virgin’s womb (meaning she did not have sex within anyone God, man, or otherwise)? It is apparent that the 4 GA’s I mentioned took a side on the issue.
“that speculation is not doctrine”
Says you. BY said that anything he said was doctrine. Perhaps your statement is not doctrine? Even if the beliefs of the 4 GA’s were mere “opinion” then I would gladly take their opinion over yours in regards to Mormonism.
genius
you:
grindael
actually, contrary to your claim, the Bible does not say the Holy Ghost “conceived” Jesus…but, hey, translate it however you like but i am hanging up the chinese telephone.
Bible:
“But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:20)
Transparent. Academically, you are lacking in comprehension. Perhaps you should seriously consider that seer stone? Your Chinese is showing.
The bizarre convolutions of Mormons when they venture out on the nursery-slopes of sex.(the leading cause of Mormon divorce…still true?) As a young faithful Mormon, here’s the explanation I got from my Father, and our Bishop. The Mormon God is a God of flesh and bones living on or near a planet called Kolob he came down to earth and in a sacred act with Mary procreated and “a son was born” I remember having questions about:Thou shalt not commit adultery,Sexual union is lawful only in wedlock etc. I was duly berated and shouted down and told never question those with the “higher Priesthood”. These guys were always shootin from the hip, just like Sub.Speaking of Sub, I’m sure all the kid’s in your ward dig your bravado, but we see it for what it is.
Shout out to Falcon for the nexus…
Falcon said: Satan loves Mormons They do his work willingly and with great pleasure and at the same time promote themselves as these righteous, upstanding, moral people. Truer words have never been spoken, heck they even foot the bill. Thank You for not dancing around what I see as the bottom line of all these discussions. The LDS lurkers who are here looking for answers need to hear and understand what is at stake. We shouldn’t sequester the truth nor apologize for it. It’s impossible for me see the LDS posters as people of gravity when they can’t cede any point regardless of an avalanche of evidence against them … On virtually every topic discussed here. Hey Lurkers, Mormonism is not some benign alternative form of Christianity.
This is one place and time in your life where the grass truly is greener.His TRUE message is simple and beautiful, ask a TRUE Christian.
Not always Christlike but… Yours in Christ, bfwjr
Here it Oh Ye Ends of the Earth! The Ignorance of one so-called Prophet named Brigham Young:
In a sermon delivered in the Tabernacle on April 19, 1852, Brigham Young made the following statements:
“I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT BEGOTTEN BY THE HOLY GHOST. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon the subject, when I replied, to this idea—‘if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be VERY DANGEROUS TO BAPTIZE AND CONFIRM FEMALES, AND GIVE THE HOLY GHOST TO THEM, LEST HE SHOULD BEGET CHILDREN TO BE PALMED UPON THE ELDERS BY THE PEOPLE, BRINGING THE ELDERS INTO GREAT DIFFICULTIES.’” (Journal of Discourses, Vol 1, page 51)
This statement is so ludicrous and ignorant it needs no commentary, except that the cult of smith still accepts this idiot as a prophet of god. And this is who authored their doctrine on the Virgin Birth. Unlike the brevity of the Bible on the matter, Young and his cronies could not shut up about it.
When it comes to defending smith’s cult, modern members are “hoisted by their own petard.”
Cont.
Why was this term(“sire”) used by LDS leaders
to describe Heavenly Fathers’s role in the con-
ception of Jesus? Combined with all the other
words used by LDS leaders,in describing this
doctrine,it is not difficult to catch their
intent.
Sub commented
Let me get this straight, Sub. Are you saying that the intended purpose of the NT is to tell us a partial, easy-to-digest (and, by implication, flawed) account so that we can go on to find a “meatier” truth that, by the way, contradicts what the NT says?
Is this what LDS mean when they talk about an “introductory” gospel and the “full” gospel?
This is tantamount to saying “we’ll say we are Christians in order to recruit Christians, and when we’ve recruited them, we’ll say we’re not Christians”.
It also contradicts the NT’s expressed mission. For example, Luke 1:1-4
John 20:30-31 tells us that John didn’t commit everything he’d received to paper. So what? Can you at least concede that the NT writers committed the most important things to their writings?
This is the Word of God, isn’t it (your 8AoF)? Even if God did not provide us with every detail, can’t you at least credit Him for telling us the most important things that He wanted to say?
Just a reminder to all my Christian brothers who post here, we are not dealing with people who think rationally when it comes to their (Mormon)religion. To paraphrase Dr. Walter Martin; “Mormons are able to think rationally about all other areas of their life but when it comes to their religion, they can’t.”
The folly of having to defend this Mormon nonsense makes these boys go bonkers. I don’t know, I’ve never been in a cult so I don’t know what it’s like to think like a cult member. Mormons have to surrender credulity in order to buy this fantasy. Then they have to come up with all sorts of amazing explanations to hold the whole farce together. We see how they disdain God and the Bible on this blog continually. Mormonism can’t stand if a person has a systematic way of interpreting scripture. Their attempts to use a disjointed approach to scriptural interpretation would serve them well even if they were trying to prove “Harry Potter” was true. I believe they could do it!
But once again remember, they aren’t taliking about “God”. For all we know, the god Joseph Smith invented trolls his personal universe looking for women attached or unattached much the same way Smith did in his little domain in Nauvoo. Even Smith’s son who headed the RLDS sect had enough sense to reject the teachings which the Utah bunch clings to.
Martin,
This is a typical cult response. It is ok for them to base an entire doctrine on one scripture, (baptism for the dead) which they twist out of context, (why do THEY, not WE) but they will point the finger at Christians because everything wasn’t written in the Bible.
It all comes from the megalomaniacal need for these ‘prophets’ to prove they were prophets. Smith and Young were the worst ego-maniacs of the bunch, and most of the heresies come from them, much to the embarassment of many modern members of their cult.
“the LDS posters … can’t cede any point regardless of an avalanche of evidence against them …”
I have thought this so many times.
Here’s another way of putting it. You (LDS reader/poster) may be able to find some obscure reasoning or twisting and get around every issue around here. BUT… ASK YOURSELF…
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY ISSUES?
Even if you can convince yourself on every single point that what you are reading is OK, or not valid, or whatever,
shouldn’t you, can’t you, see all the CLUES… that this much stuff all together… well… maybe it adds up to ONE BIG PICTURE
By the way, may I remind you? If you don’t like the quotes by Brigham Young, realize that he is the leader of the break off group of Mormons of which you are a part! If you think Joe Smith was a true prophet, but abhor what BY said, you should at least consider the other sects!
Sub, you discovered my secret. I have to admit it. I have not spent my life cataloging every word in the bible, assigning it a number. I also use resources by men who have dedicated their lives to understanding the original languages. These men defined the words according to their contextual use and according to the language of the day (but how could I know this, right?). However, the definitions given by these men are obviously wrong, because you disagree with them. You’re right. I am intellectually fraudulant and so are the Biblical commentators. Our sole motivation is our hatred of Mormons. How could the world have been so stupid as to not wait for your birth to ask for direction? Please, Sub, tell us the true definition of almah and betula according to the properly translated Bible (I happen to use the NKJV Macarthur Study Bible, but I am also fond of the NASB and most recently the NET Greek/English Diglot), which of course is the Subgenious edition with commentary by the Mormon holy ghost. I need to know how the words are used in each instance. Please define each instance in context and tell me if it means “a young maiden who is not a virgin”, “a young maiden who is of marriageable age, but who is not a virgin”, “a young maiden who is a virgin”, “a young maiden who is of marriageable age and still a virgin”, “a young maiden who has been betrothed to a man, but is not a virgin”, “a young maiden who is betrothed and is still a virgin”, or “virgin”. Since you are working with the “properly” translated Bible (didn’t you tell me a few posts ago that it’s not possible to know if a Bible is “properly” translated?) this should be a snap for a man of your intellect. Oh, one caveat: You can’t use the English editions of the Bible, a concordance, or an English/Hebrew dictionary because they were translated and compiled by apostate Christians whose only goal was to mistranslate the dubious-at-best text, and fraudulantly define words out of shear hatred for Mormons.
Sub, sorry for mis-reading your post. I meant that I was academically fraudulant, not intellectually fraudulant. Heaven forbid I misquote you. I hope I’m back up to the “level of higher ground” that you expect from me.
It’s pretty funny that you leveled that charge at me, because I actually posted this morning feeling a little bad about always going toe-to-toe with you on a personal-emotional level without much academic substance (based on a suggestion from a very nice Bored in Vernal). When I try to interact with you on an academic level you respond emotionally. Sorry Bored in Vernal, I tried, but Sub is is one bi-polar dude.
As for my freestyle version of the Bible, Sub, it is in agreement with the KJV that your corporation uses, but the pictures do help. So does the cute little pop-up of Noah’s Ark with all the animals and stuff. I don’t like reading the KJV because I’m really not very smart and all those arkayik werds tend to konfewse me.
I just heard that that Monson is going to come out tomorrow and say that the sky is green, pre-marital sex rules, drinks are on him, and the last one to the Hindu temple to throw some dough at Krishna and jump on the karma express is a rotten egg. If it was true you coudn’t do anything but join in because your “church” has no bedrock truth to stand on. Today’s truth is tomorrow’s lie. Either Elohim/Adam had sex with Mary to create Jesus and your prophets are correct, or the Bible is correct and your prophets are liars. Those are your choices. That’s what all of this really boils down to. Think about that.
In the 9 instances in the OT where the word “almah” is used, it always refers to a virgin. However, Jewish linguists have argued that the word almah means young woman and is the equivalent to the male “elem” meaning young man. In modern Hebrew, it would not be the word used to specify virgin.
Also, in Genesis 34:2–4 the Greek word parthenos refers to Dinah after she was raped. So that same Greek word as used in Matthew does not always necessarily mean “virgin”, but it can also mean “young woman”.
I’m not saying Mary wasn’t a virgin. But I just think that these word studies probably aren’t that strong of an argument for Christians to use as proof-texts.
A better argument to direct at Mormons is that the Book of Mormon calls Mary a virgin, and so do our modern General Authorities. Then you just have to deal with the possibility that she could have had relations with a pure and holy immortal being and still be considered virginal.
Since both the Mormon and the Christian points of view both make sense to me personally, I am still trying to figure out how I can know for sure which one is right.
Thank you for this interesting conversation, and especially to those who are able to discuss difficult issues without the personal attacks.
liv4jc if there is ever a Nobel prize for blog posts, you get my vote. When Sub starts his connect the dots routine, he always ends up erasing all the dots.
It would be nice if the current president of the LDS church could clear up this important issue. To be honest, I wish Monson would act more like the early LDS prophets. They weren’t afraid to declare doctrine and refute beliefs. Now all we get are “be a good faithful Mormon” talks at general conference. Continuing revelation my asthma. The only revelations given even somewhat recently were “oh crap, i need to clean up this mess” revelations. (Blacks/Priesthood, Polygamy).
But no, we get just random explanations from LDS lay members like Subgenius who’s words don’t matter or hold any more weight than the next LDS faithful. They are left to offer up any possible explanation and throw out any possible scriptures to support their belief and they can’t even agree on the same belief. C’mon Mr. Monson, quit using LDS lay members as meat shields to defend your doctrine and state it plainly and clearly. Something like “Brigham, Pratt, and those other prophets all have it correct. God came down and had sexual intercourse with Mary. This is not speculation, this is the truth. The end.”
If he did that, then LDS members like BiV could know exactly what to believe because the prophet would never lead you astray.
Just the mere fact that you, sub, have to say that the words said by your prophets is speculation means that they aren’t doing their job and being clear enough. Either that or you’re choosing not to decide so you can feel comfortable in your own skin.
Thank you God for your holy Word and being clear on what, or should i say Who brings salvation unto mankind. All this other nonsense isn’t even clear enough to take seriously.
Bored in Vernal commented
BiV,
For the orthodox position, this is not a problem. God created a fetus in Mary’s womb out of nothing by an act of divine fiat. Many Christians have noted the similarity of God’s new creation in the opening chapters of the Gospels and the Creation (ex-nihilo) of the opening Chapters of Genesis. No sex was involved.
So, this leaves us with a pregnant virgin. Remarkable? That’s why they took the trouble to write it down as such.
Then, you have the position of the LDS movement, articulated by Brigham Young (apparently) that, as God cannot make anything out of nothing, he cannot get Mary pregnant without having sexual intercourse with her. So, sex must have been part of the process. Wouldn’t you consider Brigham Young to be a “General Authority”?
I hope you realize that I’m trying to present the choice to you without value-judging either position (in this post, at least). But, it is a choice and you have to going to decide to go one way or the other.
BTW you commented earlier that Brigham Young was a product of his time. I think you’re showing some insight, but you may find yourself contending with the Mormon Church, which asserts that he was a product of God (though its more by implication nowadays).
You also commented that you are LDS now, but formerly an Ev.
I would like to invite you (subject to the Moderators here) to tell us Evs what you found lacking in our movement. My first guess is that it was the “cheap grace” you might have received, but I could be wrong and it would be better for you to speak for yourself.
Bored in Vernal,
I appreciate the attempt, but it falls short. First, in the passage you cited, you have an assumed chronology that need not necessarily be there. Yes, verse three uses the word “virgin” and it comes after verse two which mentions the rape, but the events (attraction, love, speaking tenderly) of verse three could have come before the rape.
Second, the LXX could have made a mistake. The LXX makes mistakes elsewhere, and the OT in Greek is as inspired as the OT in English.
Third, your argument ignores the context of the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. Gpark did a pretty good job of supplying the verses that lock in the notion that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after conception.
Fourth, you fail to address the long standing tradition (primitive) within Christianity that παρθενος means never having had sex. How can you explain that native Koine Greek speakers in the ancient world readily acknowledged that the Gospel accounts affirm the virgin birth?
Again, if the Gospel writers wanted to convey the idea that Mary never had sex, then how would they do it without using παρθενος?
BY was a produc of his times? This is a form of morality that is situational by definition. The slave holders in the south were products of their time. In their culture, slavery was not morally wrong therefore they can’t be held responsible for their actions as slave holders. There is no absolute truth in this philosophy. While cultural norms are important in putting things in context, situational morality allows for all sorts of behavior.
What has been the understanding and teaching of the Church since the first century regarding Mary and the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit? Look to the tradition of the Christian church and its teaching and it’s fairly easy to determine what is meant by “virgin”. The attempts of Mormons to come up with a new revelation is part and parcel of their attacks not only on basic fundamental Christian doctrine but also an attack on the character of God.
Some find my comments that Mormon teachings on this topic only serves Satan’s purpose as inflamatory and too strong of language. I don’t think so. Dr. Walter Martin taught that cults attack God and His church, the mystical body of Christ, on a couple of predictable fronts. These would include the virgin birth of Jesus, the diety of Jesus, the blood atonement and God’s Word the Bible. This serves Satan’s purposes to mislead and confuse as many souls as are susceptable to his schemes.
Mormonism serves Satan’s purposes. As Christians we recognize that we are in a spiritaul war with the forces of darkness in the heavenly places (as is clearly stated in Ephesians). Mormons who come here and participate in these discussions, are not ignorant of Mormonisms role in Satan’s war on the church. Even the occult nature of Mormon rituals and the occult connections of Joseph Smith are plain and clear. But Mormons have chosen to believe a lie rather than the truth so God has given them over to their own desires.
Putting on a moral front is a thin disguise. Jesus taught about false prophets.
With all due respects to my Christian brothers who are doing a yoeman’s job in defending God and His Church here, we must remember that the reason the Mormon posters come across as delusional and unable to perform the most elementary form of reasoning, is because they think like members of a cult, which they are. People in cults have characteristic ways of thinking and it’s on display here daily with the hardcore TBMs.
I worked in an mental health institution at one point early in my professional career and I had to remind the direct aide staff not to argue with the residents. Andy Watson has just completed several intense months in apologetic work with a group of Jehovah Witnesses. When it was drawing to a close I asked him to summarize for me the one most valuable insight he had gleaned from the interaction. To paraphrase Andy he said, “It’s useless to quote the Bible to them because their understanding of the Bible is so twisted. The only way to break through with them is to confront the Watch Tower and it’s history of lies, distortions and inconsistancy.”
I think we see the same thing here with the Mormons. The Bible isn’t even a respected source with the hardcore TBMs. As Christians, we are dedicated to and respect God’s Word as His revelation to man. Not to Mormons. Truth is whatever the GAs say today even if it contradicts what was said yesterday. Truth is on-going and progressive. Pretty tough to have a logical, rational discussion with those whose view of the truth is constantly evolving.
The one constant refrain in Mormonism is that the Mormon church is true. Period! Everything must fit into that context. Being reasonable and thoughtful is not a requirement.
I have some statements by LDS prophets, leaders and references from LDS Institute manuals that I would like bring out here and ask our Mormon friends to help me understand what is being said, implied or not said at all. I will list the quotes and then ask questions. Thank you!
“Man is made in the image of his Maker…he is the exact image, having eye for eye, foreheard for forehead, eyebrows for eyebrows, nose for nose, cheekbones for cheekbones, mouth for mouth, chin for chin, ears for ears, precisely like our Father in heaven.” (Pearl of Great Price Student Manual Religion 327, page 22)
1. Mormonism believes and teaches that their god is an exalted MAN. Are we to assume that he is only a man from the neck up as being stated in the quote above?
2. Logically, wouldn’t it follow that he is a male from the neck down as well and have a penis? The manual above is giving specific body parts. Why would this be left out?
3. What are Christians supposed to think when the Mormon god is pictured seated in a chair with an erection? http://blog.mrm.org/2009/08/indecent-exposure-part-2-of-4/
4. If he is a male and has a penis, then why wouldn’t that be used for procreation?
“Because we are made in his image (see Moses 6:9), we know that GOD HAS A BODY THAT LOOKS LIKE OURS. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22). Everything that he does is to help his children become like him – a god.” (Gospel Principles, page 9)
“I know that God is a being with BODY, PARTS AND PASSIONS…Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and GOD THE FATHER WAS BORN OF WOMAN.” (LDS President Joseph F. Smith, Deseret News, Church News, Sept.19, 1936, page 2)
1. Wouldn’t these statements coincide with the assumed conclusion above?
2. What do Mormons expect the outside world to think when reading these very simple statements? The underlying message and intent on what is being said, but not directly, is obvious. Agreed?
“By definition, exaltation includes THE ABILITY TO PROCREATE the family unit throughout eternity. THIS OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN HAS POWER TO DO. His marriage partner is our mother in heaven. We are their spirit children, born to them in the bonds of celestial marriage…As shown in this chapter, our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage that we call exaltation or godhood. In such a condition, HE AND OUR MOTHER IN HEAVEN WERE EMPOWERED TO GIVE BIRTH TO SPIRIT CHILDREN whose potential was equal to that of their heavenly parents. We are those spirit children.” (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p.132)
“All human beings – male and female – are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of HEAVENLY PARENTS, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. GENDER IS AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World”; Ensign, November 1995, page 102)
“Some of the functions in the celestial BODY will not appear in the terrestrial BODY, neither in the telestial BODY, and the POWER OF PROCREATION WILL BE REMOVED.” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, page 286)
1. What does “the ability to procreate” mean? How does that take place in view of this statement?
2. Why is a male and female listed together being represented of giving birth to spirit children?
3. If “gender is an essential characteristic” and Mormons are exactly like their gods, do you not expect the outside world to assum this is talking about sexual organs both male and female and their not being used to procreate?
4. Why is a female “mother in heaven” needed if your god can procreate without her?
5. Why would your god have a penis if it not to be used for procreation just like his supposed male children here on earth use to procreate?
6. Why the need for “heavenly parents”?
“…our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present for our progression. We learned that if we followed his plan, we would become like him…we would have all power in heaven and on earth; we would become heavenly parents and have spirit children JUST AS HE DOES” (see D&C 132:19-20). (Gospel Principles, page 14)
1. What does the phrase “just like he does” mean? If it’s asexual reproduction (singular – not needing the opposite sex), then why the need for two/parents?
2. Your god and his wife are having children. How?
“I can be a god only if I act like God…Which involves GIVING BIRTH TO SPIRIT CHILDREN and setting them on the road to exaltation. And if that is to be done, YOU MUST HAVE AN EXALTED MAN AND AN EXALTED WOMAN…an exalted man and woman who have been joined together in an eternal marriage.” (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p.5)
1. Why does there have to be a man and a woman if the Mormon god is omnipotent? Is he not omnipotent?
2. Why does he need a wife to bring forth children? He can create the world, but he needs a wife to create children? How do they do that?
“No matter to what heights God has attained or may attain, he does not stand alone; for side by side with him, in all her glory, a glory like unto his, stands a companion, THE MOTHER OF HIS CHILDREN. For as we have a Father in heaven, so also we have a Mother there, a glorified, exalted, ennobled Mother.” (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p.129)
1. The “heights” of the Mormon god are limited without a mother?
2. What does “the mother of his children mean” if it’s not obvious perceived conclusion (sexual copulation)?
“All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity. These spirit beings, THE OFFSPRING OF EXALTED PARENTS, were men and women, APPEARING IN ALL RESPECTS AS MORTAL PERSONS DO, excepting only that their spirit bodies were made of a more pure and refined substance than the elements from which mortal bodies are made.” (Doctrines of the Gospel, p.14)
1. How do we become “the offspring of exalted parents”?
2. It says “appearing in all respects as mortal persons do”…is that not all body parts?
3. Wouldn’t they procreate in the celestial the same way we do here?
4. Why would procreation and becoming parents be different there when compared to earth?
“Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they WILL NOT HAVE ANY CHILDREN AFTER THE RESURRECTION. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and HAVE CHILDREN IN THE CELESTIAL GLORY” (Doctrines of the Gospel, p.77)
1. How does “a man and his wife” have children after the resurrection?
2. Again, why the need for a wife?
3. Are the body parts of resurrected beings in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms not like the ones in the celestial? What is missing? Sexual organs or something else?
Thanks Andy.
Of course we know those quotes you gave don’t really count or mean what they plainly mean, for some reson that which is plain to everyone else, has deep hidden meaning to only the truly indoctriated Mormon.
In his book “View from Above” (1991), NBA star Wilt Chambverlain claimed to have had sex with almost 20,000 women. In response to criticism Chamberlain said, “I was just doing what was natural-chasing good-looking ladies, whoever they were and wherever they were available.” He also noted that he never tried to sleep with a woman who was married. At least Wilt had a higher moral standard than Joseph Smith!
Now think about it. What if Wilt would have had the religious creativity of Joseph Smith. He could have had sex with all of these women and claimed it was a spiritual experience. That’s really what we are dealing with, with the Mormon mythical god having actual sex with a mortal woman. All the Mormons have to do is spiritualize it and it becomes sacred.
This is the twisted logic of Mormonism, but as I have pointed out, they aren’t talking about God anyway but an imaginative creation of Joseph Smith’s sick and perverted mind. That Mormons think they have a restored gospel is a joke. It’s necessary for Mormonism to hide its “sacred” doctrine because it’s so repulsive. But again, in the twisted logic of Mormonism, the more perverted, the more hideous and the more revolting their doctrine is, the more spiritual and insightful they are. What a delusion!
BTW, has temple work been done for Wilt and can the 20,000 babes be sealed to him? Man, what a god Wilt would be; seven feet and ruggedly handsome, slam dunking his way around the Celestial kingdom!
“Those (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other Jews) who entered this order (plural marriage) at the Lord’s command, and who kept the laws and conditions appearing to it, have gained for themselves eternal exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world. Later the Prophet (Joseph Smith) and leading brethren were commanded to enter into the practice, which they did in all virtue and purity of heart…OBVIOUSLY THE HOLY PRACTICE WILL COMMENCE AGAIN after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.” (Mormon Doctrine, page 578)
“We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a PLURALITY OF WIVES, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born, and another being upon the earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as his only Begotten in this world.” (Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 172)
1. Why the need for more than one wife in the celestial?
2. Why does the Mormon god need all those wives to bring forth his children? Why would male Mormons now need more than one wife after the Millennium?
3. Will the Mormon god and his wives just look at each other and conception take place?
4. If Orson Pratt’s work “The Seer” is not authoritative or meaningful, then why is this book referenced in numerous LDS Institute manuals? Why would the LDS Church reference or quote Pratt if his ideas were reckless?
5. Why would Ezra Taft Benson seek McConkie’s advice and insights on DOCTRINE if what McConkie taught wasn’t true? (Ensign, June 1985) Why is “Mormon Doctrine” referenced continually in LDS Institute manuals with the LDS Church official stamp on the back cover?
“And Christ was born into the world as a literal Son this Holy Being; he was born in the SAME PERSONAL, REAL AND LITERAL SENSE that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. He was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 742)
1. What does this mean?
“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been ASSOCIATED TOGETHER IN THE CAPACITY OF HUSBAND AND WIFE; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the LAWFUL WIFE OF GOD THE FATHER; we use the term lawful wife, because it would have been blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully. He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF HUSBAND, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another, for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct.” (Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, 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. On this account infidels have called the Savior a bastard. This is merely a human opinion upon one of the inscrutable doings of the Almighty. That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:266)
“The birth of the Savior WAS AS NATURAL AS 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 father” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 115)
“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 OLDER ONES, HOW ARE CHILDREN BEGOTTEN? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father …So you see Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Family Home Evening Manual, 1972, pp.125,126)
Please explain these statements.
More Later,
[email protected]
Andy,
Too many modern Mormons can’t handle what you are sharing above so they become very creative cafeteria Mormons, going down the buffet table of Mormon “doctrine” and picking and choosing that which they can swallow (without gaging) and digesting that which they won’t throw-up.
The other tactic is to say that those of us outside of the cult can’t really understand the deep meaning presented in these perverted teachings because we just don’t understand the light of the restored gospel. In-other-words we are just not spiritual enough to have all of these precious truths revealed to us. Man can I talk Mormon or what?
The fact of the matter is that we have a hybrid religion here, that the false prophet Smith conjured-up when he was probably starring into his magic rock or exercising his powers of second sight vision. None-the-less, his guiding spirit led him to a religion that by its doctrines and practices attacks God, His revealed Word-the Bible, and all of the basic doctrines of the Christian church which forms the foundation of the (Christian) faith.
Once someone has bought someting emotionally, they will go to any lengths to rationalize even the most repulsive ideas, practices and behaviors. That’s why cons work. People can’t stand the thought that what they have invested in is bogus so they develop magical ways of thinking to make it all come out right.
The Mormon god having sexual relations with a mortal woman is accepted by the cult member as perfectly normal in the context of the other wacko beliefs i.e. men becoming gods, goddess wives, eternal Celestial sex, the Bible can’t be trusted, continuous revelation supercedes previous revelations which, in the light of day, prove to be totally erroneous and just plain stupid. Remember, the church is true, period. We’ll know all of the particulars later. The important thing is keep believing and sending in your 10%.
obviously falcon and Andy Watson would prefer to have a conversation alone? What about this criticism of Mormon reasoning?
The example set by that statement is to critical thinking as Count Chocula is to Dracula.
Martin of B
This is the Word of God, isn’t it (your 8AoF)? ….credit Him for telling us the most important things that He wanted to say”
i have never denied the validitiy of a correctly translated Bible, unlike the Ev i am not willing to accept just any version. “most important”? this is an arguable and rather arbitrary statement. How do you determine what is most important?…most important in getting someone to believe?, yes….how do you explain John 20:30-31
And no, it is not like converting someone to Christianity and then telling them they are not CXhristian, it is actually like letting a child learn to crawl before they walk, and then learning to walk before they run.
The biggest hurdle for any Ev is that God may actually NOT be finished revealing to us, this notion that God has finished telling us anything is absurd, unfounded, unsupported, and unjustifiable.
grindael
so you are stating that when the Bible uses the phrase “of” it is the identical to the term “from”?…this would explain your reasoning with Matthew 1:20…let me know if these two words, are in fact, interchangeable as you state, and we can proceed.
all
i am in no way contradicting the teaching of my church. Let us, however look at the assertions of man Ev posters here. The books of Mark and John do not even mention the birth story of Jesus, Mary’s virginity is not even mentioned by Paul, and it is a weak argument to assume Isaiah used “virgin” when there was a specific ‘other’ word that meant virgin. That being said, if the Bible contains the “complete” and “most important” Words, why is the issue of Mary’s virginity not more explicit with Paul,Mark, John, or Isaiah, especially if it is of such colossal importance.
subgenius,
I asked you before, how many times does something need to be repeated in the Gospels for you to find it authoritative or important? I pointed out that Paul found the Matthew and Luke authoritative and in fact quoted them in his letter to Timothy. Was he wrong to do so?
With the virgin birth, plainly documented in Matthew and Luke how many more times do you require it to be reported for it to be valid?
You may find it a weak argument that Isaiah 7:14 is referring to a miraculous virgin birth, but this has always been the confession of the catholic Church. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both site this passage in connection with the virgin Birth. The virgin birth is confessed in the oldest of the creeds. I find it rather presumptuous of you to come along and presume to tell the Church what is and is not important.
The Athanasius Creed says that “it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” So you should understand that this is not jut an “Ev” position. This has been our catholic confession since the beginning.
sub, you can sit an pick at the issue if you want, but it will never change the fact that Mormonism is not in the Bible. If the Bible is true, then Mormonism is not. If Mormonism is true, then the Bible is not. You think that the Bible is faulty, because you want to believe Mormonism.
The “virgin” issue is just one of a million divisions between “the true church” and the “Word of God”
genius
Transparent. As usual.
Of :used as a function word to INDICATE ORIGIN or derivation
He was born OF the Holy Spirit
From :used as a function word to INDICATE THE SOURCE
He was born FROM the Holy Spirit
These are the english definitions of the word. They mean the same thing used in this context.
Source or Origination. That is where Jesus came from: The Holy Spirit.
genius
I think it better not to tread down the road of what God has yet to reveal with doctrines like Adam (who is GOD) came down and had sex with Mary who was one of his wives (did she take precedence over Eve? Being Adam-god’s baby mama & all?). If this is the kind of dribble that your prophets reveal, you are better off without them.
And you defend Baptism for the dead on one verse? No one else mentions that?,
Yeah that makes total sense.
You can’t explain it (adam-god), justify it, & probably don’t believe it yourself. But you’ll defend it. Yeah, I want some of that.
setfree
an example of “predisposed”
i have never said the Bible is faulty, your prejudice against me assumes facts not in evidence. Yes, some translations are faulty, but i hold the true to Bible true.
Mormonism is actually in the Bible, throughout. When it is revealed to you, and you know when, you deny it because surely it must be a “trick”.
This is why you are predisposed and not only is that an intellectual handicap but it is spiritually irresponsible.
and for the record, i do not “want” to believe anything, whereas you seem desperate to “believe” you are right.
gundeck
the creeds are not scripture, after all Baptists are non-creedal, do you consider them non-Christian? I am not sure what bearing the creeds have on a scriptural debate..especially across denominations. (speaking of catholic, there is still a debate over virgin birth, is there not?)
The argument i pose about virginity is not based on frequency but rather on consistency. The fact that only 2 Gospels deal with the Birth of Jesus is an interesting aspect of the Gospels. Mark only mentions Mary’s name once. John even alludes to the birth much differently.
The earliest Gospel written was Mark – no mention of Birth or virginity. The virgin birth was not even taught amongst early Christians, they stayed with the Jews (Luke 24:52-53)
Paul’s epistles never mention virgin (and he knew James)…and Galatians 4:4, and Romans 1:3 seem disregard what you say is of highest importance.
“mirdash” seems to be an unknown aspect of Bible history with the Ev.
Matthew vs Luke
in the lineage of Joseph, or in Jesus and House of David,…how about Matthew saying Jesus’s grandfather is Jacob…but Luke says it is Heli?
Mary confused over “house of my father”, John 7:5,etc…
the important fact is singular and it is that
He was Born!
you see the Ev gets so obsessed with trees they miss the whole forest……TIMBERRRRRRRR!
So how is it that Jesus is considered the Son of God? What does that mean? Should the EV status in the world of Christianity be questioned because you don’t REALLY believe Jesus was the Son of God? Such is the logic or lack thereof used here to critize the LDS. What merit are the scriptures if their words don’t really mean what they describe? How are we supposed to know that the word “son” doesn’t really mean son? And “father” doesn’t really mean father?
I see many parallels between such theology and the movie “the Matrix.” The world we live in is the matrix. God is the myserious power that created the matrix. Jesus was a product of a computer program created by God. God simply changed form to appear to us and give us His message- just like a person in the matrix isn’t really a person, just a program.
It isn’t really far off. God becomes so abstract and ill-defined. Everywhere but nowhere. Is he a spirit? If so, what is a spirit? Does it have form? Can you see it? And with that lack of definition and reality comes vague and blury answers to the questions like who are we? What is life’s purpose? What do we do after this life?
We get answers like “our purpose is to glorify God.” Or “we will praise his name forever.” I honestly don’t mean disrespect, just want to point out where this philosophy and theology leads- very indistinct and vague answers to the post sincere and meaningful questions of the human soul.
Gotta question for you Jim:
What do these verses mean?
1- John 1:12 – But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
2- Romans 8:14 – For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Our Mormon posters keep making our point for us that they are not Christians. The evidence that they surely are not is on display on this particular thread. We know they deny the authority of the Bible, the nature of God, the person and work of Jesus Christ and now the denial of the virgin birth of Christ.
As I’ve said before, if this were a boxing match, the referee would have stopped it long ago; so pathetic is the Mormon reasoning, logic and total lack of any understanding of Scripture and how to interpret it. I don’t know why the Mormon posters even bother to quote the Bible. The Bible is the enemy of Mormonism. As far as our topic here, they may as well say they prayed about it, felt good, so it’s true. But then again were dealing with a type of religious mythology here in Mormonism. On the topic of this thread, as well as others, Mormonism can’t be found in the Bible.
Setfree,
There is more than one way a person can be considered a “child of God.”
We are all spirit children of God the Father. Through a process we do not understand, our spirits were fashioned in His image and by His hand.
Consider the statement by the Lord through Moses that “YE are the children of the LORD your God.” (Deut 14:1)
Malachi echoed the truth that all are children of God when he asked “Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10)
Paul also said “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring.” (Act 17: 28)
All these statements come in contexts and times that do not correlate with the sense of being a “child of God” that comes from accepting Christ. They all speak of God being the father of all.
A person becomes a “child of God” in a different sense when they accept Christ, take upon them His name, and receive His image in their countenance. Hence the term being “born again.” A person is literally changed through the miraculous power of the atonement of Jesus Christ- they have a new life, spiritually speaking. They become the children of Christ.
So in the scriptures you cite, John and Paul are speaking about the second sense of being a “child of God” or “sons of God.”
It is a fascinating topic I think nobody fully understands. Are there actually four births? Two spiritual and two physical?
Spiritual:
1. Spirit birth to Heavenly Father before this life.
2. Spiritual rebirth after accepting Christ and being born again.
Physical:
1. Physical birth to an earthly mother and father
2. Second physical birth or rebirth at the resurrection.
Interesting.
subgenius,
Only two of the three synoptic Gospels deal with the birth of Jesus, are we to assume that they are both incorrect and that Jesus was in fact not born. Are we also to reject anything written that is not found in all 4 of the Gospels?
The 5 to 10 year difference in the dates of Matthew and Mark don’t particularly help your argument now do they? Luke traveled with Paul (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phil 24), unless you reject that as well. Luke’s Gospel gives us the clearest account of the birth narrative and was probably written prior to Matthew. Paul, never shy to call someone out does not repudiate Luke or Matthew for presenting false doctrine, in fact he quotes from them in one of his epistles (written in the late 60’s after both Luke and Matthew).
Incorrectly you continue to place the virgin birth at the feet of the “Ev” and miss the salvific importance of the incarnation recognized by all of Christianity. The Mormon denial of the incarnation, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity condescending and taking on our human nature in order to give Himself as the perfect sacrifice and to be our Prophet, Priest, and King, has created a theological crisis for your prophets. Because of your denial of the Triune nature and your anthropomorphic view of God, your prophets find themselves unable to consistently explain the virgin birth without offering nonsense about “marriage” and “natural, physical way” and other such heretical and irreverent language.
It is perfectly explainable that your church does not have a canonical explanation for the birth of our Savior. Everything that you prophets have been able to speculate and proclaim has been so distinctly sacrilegious and totally without any respect for the Divine that nobody can stomach it for very long.
subgenius,
I assume that you meant “Midrash” and what this has to do with your attempts to question the validity of Matthew or Luke is beyond me. The Midrash hermeneutic first and foremost attempts to study the Bible as complete whole taking every word as the word of God. In fact Midrash starts with the presupposition that the canon is closed. Not very Mormon of them, is it? If by “Mirdash” you are trying to imply that there is some other valid interpretation of Isa 7:14 other than the one given by Matthew then, I am sure you are aware there is not any known pre-Christian Jewish interpretation of Isa 7:14 and the Jewish proposition that Isaiah was referring to Hezekiah must be seen as an apologetic against Christianity.
Olsen Jim,
God is Father, but not in the same way as a human is father. Jesus is the Son of the Father, but not in any way that a human child is the son of his father.
Language used to refer to God is not univocal with language used to refer to men. Instead of assuming that the words God uses to refer to Himself necessarily mean the same thing when referencing the infinite and the finite we must understand that God uses Human language in an analogical way to refer to divine. Human language is inadequate to express the infinite and our words need to be seen as subject to God. You are making God subject to our words by insisting that he must be a father in the same manner as His creatures. Language used to refer to the created simply cannot mean the same thing when referring to the infinite.
Sub responded to me
I suggest you regard the Bible as God setting the agenda. In other words, it answers the questions that God wants us to ask. So, “most important” means “most important to God”.
Do you have the courage to allow God to re-prioritize your agenda? Can you trust Him to determine what is most important for you? Or, will you continue to impose your own agenda on what the Bible has to say?
What’s there to explain? John comments that he could have written much more, but he didn’t. The real question is if the “additional” material would have changed the agenda in what John did write. To suggest it would, would undermine John’s integrity as a “witness” of the Lord.
Rubbish. How would withholding essential information possibly stunt a person’s development? I don’t know of any training program that does not set out by saying “we are going to train you to do X, but we’ll start with Y”. Your programs hold out Y to be the end goal, whilst withholding information about X.
Are you so incredibly dense to have not heard me, and a host of other posters here, telling you time and again that we look forward to and welcome God’s continuing revelation of Himself. We reject the Mormon “revelation” because it is fundamentally different from what God has already revealed in His Holy Word.
…ctd…
olsen,
Jesus, stands in a unique position as God’s “only begotten Son” (John 1:18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9). As the divine Word, He was God with the Father before His human conception (John 1:1-3, 14). Then, through God the Father exercising the power of the Holy Spirit, He was supernaturally conceived as the human being Jesus Christ in the womb of Mary while she was yet a virgin (Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:20).
Jesus had no immediate human father. Rather, God the Father was directly His Father in even a physical sense through the Holy Spirit. Simultaneously, Jesus was also begotten of the Father to spiritual life through the same Spirit (compare John 5:26; 6:63). And at His resurrection, following His death, Christ returned to His former glory with the Father, having prayed just before He died, “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5).
While other human beings are not physically conceived the supernatural way Christ was, they can follow Him in being spiritually fathered by God—though later in their physical existence. Converted Christians are also referred to as “begotten” of God (1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 5:1, 18, KJV), as children of God (John 1:12; Romans 8:16, 21; 1 John 3:1-2), as sons of God (Matthew 5:9; Romans 8:14, 19; Galatians 3:26) as God’s “sons and daughters” (2 Corinthians 6:18).
…ctd…
When you say that the Bible is the Word of God you are sending the signal that it is the yardstick against which you judge continuing revelation. When you abandon this yardstick in favour of your prophets’ “revelations” you send the signal that the god(s) want(s) us to live in a perpetual state of schizophrenia, being able to lie to ourselves internally to satisfy the contradictory and mutually exclusive voices that we are supposed to believe in.
No thanks. He is not a God of confusion (1 Cor 14:33).
Which brings us back to the Bible.
Your argument is that the purpose of the Bible is not to communicate to us the content of the Bible, but to communicate something else.
How absurd.
olsen,
…ctd…
They are described in 1 Peter 1:23 as “having been BEGOTTEN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed [Greek sperma—that is, not of a male sperm cell fertilizing a female egg to produce only mortal, perishable life], but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth” (American Standard Version).
This incorruptible, imperishable life to which they are led by Scripture comes by God implanting His Spirit within them, for “the Spirit alone gives eternal life” (John 6:63, New Living Translation).
Again, the Holy Spirit is the agency of spiritual conception. Note again Paul’s words in Romans 8:16: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God” (KJV). And through that Spirit it becomes possible for us to be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), the very nature of God.
olsen,
Jesus, stands in a unique position as God’s “only begotten Son” (John 1:18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9). As the divine Word, He was God with the Father before His human conception (John 1:1-3, 14). Then, through God the Father exercising the power of the Holy Spirit, He was supernaturally conceived as the human being Jesus Christ in the womb of Mary while she was yet a virgin (Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:20).
Jesus had no immediate human father. Rather, God the Father was directly His Father in even a physical sense through the Holy Spirit. Simultaneously, Jesus was also begotten of the Father to spiritual life through the same Spirit (compare John 5:26; 6:63). And at His resurrection, following His death, Christ returned to His former glory with the Father, having prayed just before He died, “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5).
While other human beings are not physically conceived the supernatural way Christ was, they can follow Him in being spiritually fathered by God—though later in their physical existence. Converted Christians are also referred to as “begotten” of God (1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 5:1, 18, KJV), as children of God (John 1:12; Romans 8:16, 21; 1 John 3:1-2), as sons of God (Matthew 5:9; Romans 8:14, 19; Galatians 3:26) as God’s “sons and daughters” (2 Corinthians 6:18).
to be cont…
cont…
They are described in 1 Peter 1:23 as “having been BEGOTTEN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed [Greek sperma—that is, not of a male sperm cell fertilizing a female egg to produce only mortal, perishable life], but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth” (American Standard Version).
This incorruptible, imperishable life to which they are led by Scripture comes by God implanting His Spirit within them, for “the Spirit alone gives eternal life” (John 6:63, New Living Translation). Again, the Holy Spirit is the agency of spiritual conception. Note again Paul’s words in Romans 8:16: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God” (KJV). And through that Spirit it becomes possible for us to be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), the very nature of God.
Olsen Jim,
Doesn’t the process you don’t understand (whereby our spirit being is created before birth according to LDS doctrine) somehow involve the Heavenly Father’s harem of Heavenly Wives/Mothers? Isn’t that what the “eternal” principle of polygamy and forever families is all about? Aren’t polygamous sealings still taking place in Mormon temples? I never thought that sex was all that difficult to understand, but if you say so. Seems like you’re building a mystery out of plain statements about the birth of Jesus and the eternal procreation taught by Mormon Prophet Brigham Young. Seriously, do you think Brigham Young didn’t think, believe, and teach these things? I would think it better to deal directly with what BY taught and reject him as a prophet, than to try and hold on to him as a prophet while rejecting his teachings. It’s like the current ELCA Lutheran Church that is rejecting everything a confessional Lutheran believes and yet is holding on to the name Lutheran. Luther would rightly reject them as Christian, just as BY would reject many modern day Mormons as Mormon. I think BY would be much more comfortable with the FLDS. They take his teachings seriously.